Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS (LIVERPOOL STREET STATION) BILL (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time upon Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Part-time Higher Education

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to extend opportunities for part-time higher education.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William Shelton): The Government recognise the key contribution of part-time higher education, particularly in meeting the vocational needs of adults, and would encourage institutions and their providers to continue to accord a high priority to such provision.

Mr. Beith: Does the Minister agree that there can be few students more deserving of encouragement than those undertaking degree courses in the evening after a full day's work? Is he aware that Birkbeck college has provided a valuable service for such students, and that such a facility should be available in more centres? What will he do to enable such students to have the limited cost-effective financial assistance that they need?

Mr. Shelton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the importance of and his praise for Birkbeck college. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary visited Birkbeck college the other day and has a special interest in such provisions. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman by telling him that the UGC's 1981 distribution recurrent grant and advice on numbers envisaged an overall increase in part-time university students by 1984–85. That will help places such as Birkbeck.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no power to make mandatory awards for part-time courses, except in certain limited cases of teacher training.

Dr. Hampson: Is my hon. Friend aware that that is one of the most overriding reasons for reviewing and reforming our student maintenance system? There is no help for part-time students, who sacrifice a great deal, are highly motivated and usually want to do the vocational courses that the Government support.

Mr. Shelton: I recognise my hon. Friend's interest and remind him of the recent revision in the 21-hour rule, which goes some way to meet that point. Local education authorities have the power to make discretionary grants.

Mr. Whitehead: In spite of his optimism, has the Minister seen the recent survey by Malcolm Tight on the provision of part-time study courses and the number of institutions that have gone back, not forward, in that respect? Does the Minister agree that there is a case for reviewing the full-time equivalent calculation in respect of financing such courses as well as re-examining mandatory awards?

Mr. Shelton: I asgree with the hon. Gentleman. Mr. Tight's report is very interesting. We shall be considering its recommendations in the light of the response that we shall make to ACACE's proposal on the development of continuing educational opportunities for the next 20 years, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman has seen and finds interesting.
The calculation is difficult. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman by saying that the new national advisory body and the pooling committee are setting up a joint technical working group, which will consider equivalents.

Textbooks (Imports)

Mr. Greenway: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information is available to him as to the proportion of textbooks used in maintained schools which is imported.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): I regret that my Department does not collect information on that matter. The value of all published literature imported into the United Kingdom in 1980 was £120 million.

Mr. Greenway: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of subversive and Communist publications which go into schools via the Novosti press, as reported in The Daily Telegraph and other publications? Will he do something about it?

Dr. Boyson: We have to differentiate between the agreement of 1961 that allowed Soviet Weekly to come into British schools and 100,000 copies of Anglia to go into Russian schools. That figure compares with the 30 or 40 pamphlets from the Novosti press, which are offered free, and with many of which we disagree.

Mr. Dobson: Setting aside the source of the books, what does the hon. Gentleman say to the Publishers' Association, which claims that there is little or no sign of education authorities using the £20 million that the hon. Gentleman claims to have allocated for additional book purchasing?

Dr. Boyson: We put £20 million more in the rate support grant for this year, which would take the level of book provision an real terms back to the 1978–79 level. That is what I am informed, but we can argue about that at another time. Once the money has left us in the RSG it is up to local authorities how they use it. Since they probably paid more in teachers' salaries than was allowed for in the RSG, that extra money had to come from somewhere.

Manchester-Salford

Mr. Silvester: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will review the continuance of three separate institutions of university status in Manchester-Salford.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William Waldegrave): My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Silvester: Is there not an opportunity for the creation of a new national technological institution by combining Salford and UMIST? If local conversations were to take place with that aim in view, would my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State give such talks a fair wind, as far as it lies within his power to do so?

Mr. Waldegrave: Yes.

Mr. Eastham: If the Minister is tempted to pursue the line proposed by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester), will he assure us that there will be consultations with the institutions involved to ensure that there is no shabby treatment, which often seems to be the trend when the Government are involved in such matters?

Mr. Waldegrave: I was able to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) so briefly because he emphasised that such a proposal would have to derive from local initiatives.

Teachers (Employment)

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimate he has made of the numbers of teachers likely to be employed by local education authorities in September 1982; and how many teachers are at present unemployed.

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has as to the extent to which local education authorities intend to reduce numbers of teachers.

Mr. Cryer: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he has made of the number of teachers likely to be employed by local education authorities in September 1982; and how many teachers are at present unemployed.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): If the local authority employers continue to reduce school teacher numbers at a rate similar to that of the last two years, the number of teachers employed in England for the next academic year will be around 410,000. Last month, 15,000 people were registered with the Department of Employment in England as unemployed and seeking work as teachers in schools.

Mr. Skinner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on a day when the unemployment figures have shot up to an all-time high, it is sheer economic lunacy continually to throw people out of work? Does he not recognise that teachers ought to be used to ensure that some of our 16 to 19-year-olds are given a school maintenance grant of, say, £20 a week so that they can stay on at school and provide more jobs, and that teachers should be used to increase the number of nursery schools? Surely that is the way forward, rather than throwing teachers on the scrap-heap. The Government seem to be obsessed with the idea that—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have had the question.

Sir Keith Joseph: Of course it is right that a proper number of school teachers should be employed, but the hon. Gentleman should recognise that there is a choice at the moment between unemployment in the public sector and unemployment in the trading sector, which pays for the public sector. The more we employ in the public sector, the fewer jobs there will be in the trading sector, which supports it.

Mr. Dubs: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he has no power to compel the Inner London Education Authority to reduce the number of teachers that it employs?

Sir Keith Joseph: I confirm that I have no powers to force any local education authority to dismiss teachers or to reduce the number of teachers. Such decisions rest with the authorities.

Mr. Cryer: Is it not true that the cost of training a teacher is many thousands of pounds and that wasting that public investment and throwing people on the scrap-heap is anti-social misery, which the Government are forcing on the education system? Is it not true also that one of our most precious national assets is our people and that we should increase training and education opportunities by providing a better pupil-teacher ratio and more opportunities for teachers to work instead of putting them on the dole, which is what the Government are doing?

Sir Keith Joseph: Most of the teachers who have left the profession have done so voluntarily, for one reason or another. What the hon. Gentleman says is true to some extent, but it must be applied with economic understanding, as I tried to say to his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Mr. Haselhurst: In so far as my right hon. Friend influences the optimum number of teachers in posts from time to time, will he bear in mind in particular the plight of country schools, because an insufficient number of teachers may lead to the closure of many small village schools?

Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friends and I take very great care when considering proposals to close a country school or, indeed, any school.

Mrs. Faith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if education authorities concentrated spending on matters directly related to education, such as teachers and textbooks, instead of on matters not directly related to education, such as school meals, they would be able to employ more teachers and achieve an even better pupil-teacher ratio?

Sir Keith Joseph: I agree with my hon. Friend that some education authorities have made economies in school meals, which other education authorities refuse to copy.

Mr. Kinnock: If, as the right hon. Gentleman tells us, there is a smooth machinery for transferring assets and resources between the public and private sectors, why have the £1,400 million of cuts that the Government have made in education while they have been in office not found their way into growth in the private sector?
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how having 59,000 fewer teachers by 1985, a worse pupil-teacher ratio


and a loss of expenditure on books and essential materials will assist in securing employment for the 63 per cent. of this week's school leavers who will be unemployed, or for those of future generations who, on unchanged policies, will face the same fate?

Sir Keith Joseph: If the Government had not made some economies somewhere, the economy and unemployment would be worse. We have cut the amount devoted to education in real terms by less than the fall in the number of pupils.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This matter comes up again later.

Teacher Education

Mr. Tilley: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has yet decided what further part his Department might play in encouraging teacher education to take account of the multi-ethnic character of society in other ways than at present, as promised in Cmnd. 8476.

Dr. Boyson: The task of identifying more precisely what should be done is being tackled by the Swann committee. We must await its views before deciding what part the Department might play.

Mr. Tilley: Is the Under-Secretary not aware that in a few days' time it will be the first anniversary of the publication of the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs' on racial disadvantage, which drew attention to the fact that for many of the teachers who will go into inner city schools and multi-racial areas there is no compulsory training to deal with the many problems and possibilities involved in multi-racial education?
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he will allow this disgraceful situation, which affects my constituency and many others in inner cities, to drift on until he has received the full report from the Swann committee and considered it for several months? Does he not recognise that, as the Select Committee pointed out, urgent action is needed?

Dr. Boyson: In October the Department issued a consultative document on which material is still coming in. Part of the problem, following the Rampton report, was that many general statements were made, but there were no specific recommendations that could be put into effect. We hope that the Swann committee will give us something that can take us from general principles to actuality. Twenty-three courses on special access are running now and the first graduates will come out next year. I give the hon. Gentleman that additional information for his benefit, even though he did not ask for it. The colleges are aware of what is happening and I am sure that many are adapting the lessons to the present situation.

Mr. Marlow: While teachers in training must obviously be taught about the diverse backgrounds from which our people come, with regard to the culture that they are taught to teach, if we want a cohesive society it would be more positive to teach them to concentrate on traditional British culture. That is where public provision should come in. Private provision could quite properly look after the important cultural backgrounds of many pupils in our schools.

Dr. Boyson: My hon. Friend draws attention to a dichotomy. Teachers should be aware of the background

of their pupils, but the vast majority of the parents of those pupils want them completely integrated into our society, otherwise they will face double deprivation.
My constituency has at least as high a proportion of immigrants as that of the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley). West Indians in my area wish to set up their own school because, they said, in basic literature, English and mathematics their children were not being properly taught and were being deprived as a result of special action being taken only for them.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the hon. Gentleman disadvantage or enhance the process of stability, unity and cohesion in our society by encouraging or discouraging—[Interruption].—Mr. Speaker, there is nothing that 1 can do about the ineducable below the Gangway.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kinnock: I am actually referring to the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Sir A. Fell). Perhaps I shall see him outside afterwards. Does the Minister believe that those desirable objectives will be advanced or retarded by the creation of separate schools, with or without his encouragement, along colour lines?

Dr. Boyson: This is obviously a complicated question. It is interesting that the demand came from the people themselves because they wanted basic education in the schools, as was reported in the national press last week. This is a particularly delicate matter. One must accept that children come from different backgrounds and that, in many cases, they want to keep their own culture and languages and to stay in their own groups. At the same time, the parents want education to allow their children to compete equally, without discrimination when they leave school, for the jobs that they will go to.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are getting very long questions and answers.

University Teachers (Pensions)

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many university teachers who are United Kingdom citizens and served in the Armed Forces during the Second World War have had those years of war service excluded for pension superannuation purposes.

Mr. Waldegrave: Full information is not available on all categories of university teachers' war service. However, I am informed by the universities superannuation scheme that some 1,400 applications have been received for the half-rate war service concession. Of those applications, some 400 had to be disallowed.

Mrs. Wainwright: Does the Minister agree that it is unfair, unjust and mean for any employer to refuse to allow years of war service to be included for superannuation purposes? Will he therefore ensure that his Department takes note of those mean employers and that these university teachers get their rights?

Mr. Waldegrave: The provision for half-rate pensionable service, which was extended to university teachers recently, was done on exactly the same terms as for the rest of the public sector. It would be difficult to make a special case for university teachers.

Mr. McQuarrie: Does my hon. Friend accept that university teachers not only took part in combat in the war,


but carried out duties in the Army Education Corps which maintained the education standards of serving members of the Armed Forces? Private employers would continue their pension rights. Does my hon. Friend accept that these university teachers are therefore similarly entitled to that privilege?

Mr. Waldegrave: No one is denying the war service of university teachers, nor that of civil servants or others to whom similar conditions apply.

Teachers (Demand)

Mr. McWilliam: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will estimate the number of teachers who will be required in the years 1982–83, 1983–84 and 1984–85, together with the pupil to teacher ratios assumed for each of those years.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many teachers he expects to be employed in State schools in September of 1982, 1983 and 1984.

Sir Keith Joseph: In this year's public expenditure White Paper it was assumed that the number of teachers employed in maintained schools in England would be 405,000 in January 1983, 390,000 in January 1984 and 380,000 in January 1985. The overall ratio of pupils to teachers would thus remain close to the figure of 18·6: 1 recorded in January 1981. The actual number of teachers employed in those years will depend on a number of factors, including the priorities of local councils, and future levels of pay and prices.

Mr. McWilliam: Will the Secretary of State tell the House why he has decided, inevitably, to worsen the standards of education in this country by not taking the opportunity when he had it to improve the pupil-teacher ratio?

Sir Keith Joseph: Because we believe that it is right, in the interests of increasing economic vitality and employment in this country, to get a better balance than we have now between Government spending and total national revenue.

Mr. Bennett: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is extremely dangerous to reduce the number of teachers employed in schools in line with the reduced number of children, because that inevitably leads, in primary schools, to teachers having to teach mixed age groups, and in secondary schools to a major reduction in specialisation? Is it not important that, using the extra teachers, we should improve education standards, not reduce them?

Sir Keith Joseph: It is greatly in the interests of school children that the economic condition of the country should improve, and the Government believe—they fought an election on that belief—that to achieve that end it is necessary to have some restraint in public spending.

Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the term "ineducable" was deleted from the education vocabulary some years ago? Does he agree with me that the deployment of teachers is the key to success in teaching policy?

Sir Keith Joseph: I certainly agree that the deployment of teachers is an important factor. It was the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) who referred to his ineducable hon. Friends below the Gangway.

Mr. McNally: When the Secretary of State says that the cuts in teachers numbers are scare stories, does he realise that many people in education are scared that the cuts are a Treasury hatchet, for which he is the front man, scared that his boast that he has maintained and improved student-teacher ratios is being abandoned, and scared that the quality of teaching is bound to fall in the next two or three years? That is what people in education are scared about.

Sir Keith Joseph: I am surprised that the hon. Member should fall so low as to try to foster a scare story that he cannot really believe. A review of the Government's plans for local authority expenditure for 1983–84 will, as for other expenditure, take place in the usual way as part of the 1982 public expenditure survey, prior to the RSG settlement for 1983–84.

Student Loans

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is now in a position to make a statement on his policy towards the introduction of loans for students in further and higher education.

Mr. Shersby: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to be in a position to make a statement on the possibility of introducing a student loans scheme.

Mr. Waldegrave: The introduction of student loans raises many complex issues, and my right hon. Friend cannot yet say when he will be in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Proctor: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he tell the House whether he is considering moving from a system of grants to one of loans, or whether he is considering top-up loans?

Mr. Waldegrave: One of the schemes under consideration is a mixture of grants and loans.

Mr. Shersby: Is my hon. Friend aware that of the 67 per cent. of students who rely on a parental contribution, 73 per cent. find that their parents are unable or unwilling to top up their grants? Will he therefore consider introducing a loan scheme which will enable students to bridge the financial gap?

Mr. Waldegrave: One of the advantages of a properly organised and subsidised loan scheme would be to limit students' dependence on ordinary bank overdrafts.

Mr. Ashley: Is the Minister aware that there are far too few working-class students in further and higher education, and that the system of student loans will make for even fewer? Is the Minister sanguine about that, or is he prepared to do something about it?

Mr. Waldegrave: The number of working-class children who are coming forward properly qualified is too few. That is the real problem. There is no evidence that the present system has done much to advance the cause of bringing more working-class students into university education. Any loan scheme would, of course, have to meet the point that the right hon. Gentleman raises.

Sir William van Straubenzee: In putting any scheme before the House, will my hon. Friend be precise about the methods by which the loans would be recovered—by university or college, or nationally? Does he realise that many of us who are his friends are worried that he will erect such a bureaucracy that he will increase public expenditure and thus incur the Prime Minister's wrath?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. The problem that he raises is one of the obstacles that a proper loan scheme would have to overcome.

Mr. Whitehead: Further to the Minister's earlier answer, might there not be a case for mandatory support before as well as after the age of 18 in order to increase the number of working-class entrants to universities and polytechnics? Is there any inducement to the working-class student, whose parents might be unemployed at the time of his application, to take up any loan scheme such as is now being proposed?

Mr. Waldegrave: That is a different area of support. The present system has not worked well in bringing forward working-class children in this area.

Teachers (Redundancies)

Mr. Dobson: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, in view of the threat to standards of literacy and numeracy in primary schools referred to in the recent report of Her Majesty's Inspectorate, he will take steps to prevent further teacher redundancies.

Sir Keith Joseph: The current average class size in primary schools is the lowest ever. It is for local education authorities to decide how to manage the necessary reductions in the number of primary teachers, but I do not believe that ruling out redundancies would protect standards.

Mr. Dobson: In the light of the recent report of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools, which said that existing standards, particularly in numeracy and literacy, could not be maintained if current levels of staffing remained the same, how, if the Secretary of State does not regard that as a scare story, will redundancies among existing teachers improve the chances of children achieving decent standards of numeracy and literacy?

Sir Keith Joseph: I must repeat—I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman could absorb this—that effective teaching is the key, together with pupil motivation. That cannot be measured in financial terms.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in principle he is in favour of village primary schools? Does he accept that in sparsely populated areas, such as Lincolnshire, it is necessary to have an above-average number of teachers to maintain those village schools and their standards?

Sir Keith Joseph: To be against village schools would be like being against motherhood. Of course Ministers are in favour of village schools, but, on the basis of proposals made on the initiative of local education authorities, Ministers must take into account the educational and financial implications of keeping each school as it is.

Mr. Sheerman: Will the Secretary of State talk to his colleague, the Secretary of State for Industry, who seems keen to put a computer into every school, while at the same

time the Secretary of Stale for Education is hell-bent on ensuring that there is no one to teach computer studies in any school?

Sir Keith Joseph: The Secretary of State for Industry and I conspired to get not only computers, but teachers who are equipped to teach the study of them, into every school.

Mr. Madel: Does my right hon Friend agree that the comments of Her Majesty's Inspectorate on numeracy are an incentive for local education authorities to step u.p their in-service retraining programmes? If we move to an education block grant system, will my right hon. Friend pay special attention to those local education authorities that have a good record of retraining teachers in shortage subjects?

Sir Keith Joseph: The retraining of teachers in shortage subjects is crucial. I commend to all hon. Members and all in the educational world the excellent report of the Cockcroft committee with regard to numeracy.

Social Science Research Council

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will reconsider the composition of the Social Science Research Council.

Mr. William Shelton: I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's response to Lord Rothschild's report.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware of growing concern that the Social Science Research Council is becoming increasingly politically biased in its allocation of funds to the economic departments of universities that support the Government's monetarist policies compared with those, such as that at Cambridge, that disagree fundamentally with the Government's monetarist views?

Mr. Shelton: The hon. Gentleman might not be aware that Lord Rothschild conducted an inquiry into the Social Science Reseach Council, the report of which has been published. The period for comment upon that report ended yesterday. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will reply to that report, having seen those comments, in due course.

Dr. Hampson: Is my hon. Friend aware that charges that we are politically loading the Social Science Research Council are spurious? When one considers the appointments that have been made by former Labour Administrations, including a noble lord, recently appointed to the other place, it shows plainly that this is blatant Labour politicking. My hon. Friend is right to take a firm line with the council to ensure that its money is spent in a cost-effective way.

Mr. Shelton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. However, one cannot pre-judge my right hon. Friend's decisions on Lord Rothschild's report.

Mr. Whitehead: May we prompt the Minister a little? In view of the Secretary of State's intention to wind up the SSRC last autumn without any inquiry, what is the Minister's comment on Lord Rothschild's verdict that that would be an act of intellectual vandalism, which is an implicit criticism of the Secretary of State?

Mr. Shelton: May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he has got it the wrong way round? The very fact that my


right hon. Friend asked the noble Lord to make his report shows my right hon. Friend's open-mindedness and his fair approach.

Advisory Bodies (Membership)

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to ensure that advisory bodies always have, as a large proportion of their membership, persons with direct experience of exercising responsibility in the field of education.

Sir Keith Joseph: Appointments to advisory groups, of whatever kind, will normally include those experienced in the fields concerned. The Government's proposals for the establishment of an examinations body and a school curriculum development body to replace the Schools Council are now the subject of discussion with the local authority associations and others. The balance of membership on the proposed new bodies is one issue for discussion.

Mr. Hardy: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government will have to respond to the growing suspicion that the only advice that they seek or wish to receive is that which comes from the like-minded or the placemen?

Sir Keith Joseph: Ministers are entitled to reach their own conclusions. They must take advice and account of all the views given, and that we shall do.

Mr. Forman: In seeking people to serve on the advisory bodies, especially those dealing with examinations and the curriculum, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that steps will be taken to ensure that there is adequate representation of the point of view of industry and, indeed, of independent-minded people generally?

Sir Keith Joseph: It is true to say that busy people in industry with sufficient knowledge of education and who are willing to serve are not all that easy to find. However, in short, the answer is "Yes".

Mr. Dormand: Will the Secretary of State say what the legal basis is for his proposal to abolish the Schools Council? Is not the Schools Council a charity, which means that he has no power to abolish it?

Sir Keith Joseph: I understand that there is no power to force the Government to continue to provide their share of the funding of the Schools Council in the way that they have done.

Foreign Language Teaching

Mr. Newens: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any evidence of the impact made by falling rolls on the availability of classes in foreign languages in the schools; and if he will make a statement.

Dr. Boyson: There is evidence that some schools are reducing modern language provision. My Department will be consulting those interested in the autumn about the teaching of foreign languages in schools.

Mr. Newens: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that reductions in the number of teachers as rolls fall inevitably means that schools will reduce the number of classes in modern languages, particularly where a minimum number

of pupils is fixed? If we are no longer to see German being taught as a sixth form subject in the majority of our schools, is there not a need for immediate action?

Dr. Boyson: I appreciate that falling rolls create problems in the teaching of all subjects, including languages. However, relatively, foreign languages have been declining in Britain for the past 10 to 15 years. The proportion of students obtaining an A-level in a foreign language now is lower than it was 15 years ago, and among boys there is an absolute drop.

Mr. Beith: In view of the seriousness of the disappearance of languages such as German, Spanish and Italian from many schools, will the Minister seek a special initiative, including additional staffing, to make the teaching of those important languages possible?

Dr. Boyson: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is not just a question of staffing. The distribution of language teaching is wrong. In Britain, 85 per cent. of students are studying French, of whom only one-third are still studying it in the fourth year. The collapse in language teaching over those three or four years is more rapid than in any other subject. Britain has a serious language teaching problem.

Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the method of teaching languages is as much responsible for the decline in the number of pupils studying languages as is the decline in pupil rolls?

Dr. Boyson: I take my hon. Friend's point. A literary approach is good for academic children, but many children benefit more from the spoken approach in which they learn to use the language and to feel what it can achieve.

Mr. Kinnock: How does the Minister hope to reverse the decline of which he spoke, or to build from the collapse of which he speaks, when the Government's economic and education policies revolve round major cuts in education, the loss of tens of thousands of teachers and the eradication of places in universities and other institutions of higher education which specifically exist to develop language teaching and learning?

Dr. Boyson: According to the statistics collected in January, there is no shortage of language teachers. If one were to question anything, one would question whether the move to comprehensive schools in which able linguists—both children and teachers—are spread around is one of the reasons for the decline in language teaching.

Teachers (Pensions)

Mr. Iain Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to improve the opportunities for teachers to make additional voluntary contributions to retirement pensions in order to increase the value of the pension.

Dr. Boyson: The teachers' superannuation scheme already offers its members a facility to purchase additional years of pensionable service. Revised arrangements negotiated with the teachers are due to be introduced next month which will further enhance this facility by removing age restrictions and offering the opportunity to make second and subsequent elections to purchase added years.

Mr. Mills: I thank my hon. Friend for his useful reply. Will he bear in mind the views of my constituent, Mr. John


Smith of Meriden, on the role that voluntary bodies, in this case building societies, can play in strengthening additional voluntary contributions for teachers' pensions?

Dr. Boyson: I shall certainly do that. I shall refer the matter to the teachers' superannuation working party. However, it has just occurred to me that, since I taught for 23 years—just as you taught, Mr. Speaker—I should perhaps declare a special interest in this question.

Mr. Guy Barnett: Will the Minister investigate the possibility of allowing the many teachers who have been made redundant to purchase into their pension scheme after redundancy?

Dr. Boyson: We shall certainly look into that question and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about it.

Further Education

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimate he has made of the demand in England and Wales in September 1982 for places in further education colleges from students qualified to follow the courses they are seeking.

Mr. Waldegrave: Somewhat in excess of 1·8 million home students, including those students with the necessary qualifications for courses that require them, are expected to seek places in further education colleges in England and Wales in the 1982–83 academic year.

Mr. Hooley: Given the horrifying figure of 3·2 million unemployed, which includes about half a million boys and girls, is it not of paramount importance to expand colleges of further education as quickly as possible, so that those boys and girls who want to train for a career will have every opportunity to do so?

Mr. Waldegrave: Yes, Sir. The Government have devoted considerable resources to doing exactly that.

Dr. Hampson: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should concentrate on adult learners who wish to retrain or to improve their qualifications in polytechnics and equivalent colleges and that we could encourage them to do so by instituting a loan scheme or, as the Advisory Council for Adult and Continuing Education called it, an education mortgage? In that way, they would have some incentive to retrain.

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend's priority is entirely right. The idea of a loan scheme is interesting, but there is a limit to resources, even for a loan scheme.

Mr. Flannery: Have the Government seriously thought of giving a worthwhile allowance to all over the age of 16—for the sake of argument, the youth opportunities programme allowance of £25—to induce them to stay in education, instead of throwing them on the scrap heap at 16, as happens at present? As an educationist, does not the Minister think that that is a worthwhile aim?

Mr. Waldegrave: Both this Government and the previous Government have considered that idea, but the expenditure implications are great.

University Science Departments

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received on the effect of financial cuts on university science departments.

Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a number of representations about the adverse effect on some university science departments of reductions in funding, including representations from the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs, on whose behalf a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), came to see me recently.

Mr. Dalyell: How do the Minister and the Prime Minister—since she is responsible for science—answer the sustained and blistering attack of the vice-chancellor of Edinburgh university, who, in front of 3,000 graduates, accused the Government of having an appalling record over university science departments?

Mr. Waldegrave: The answer lies in the very considerable resources spent, including the large sums that have recently been tied to new developments in biotechnology, of which the Government are proud.

Education Statistics

Mr. Marks: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is satisfied with the availability of up-to-date statistics on education in England.

Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, bearing in mind the resources available for this work. The aim is always to improve the quality and speed of availability of statistics where possible.

Mr. Marks: Why is it that at the end of the school year, and five months after receiving the returns from local authorities, the Secretary of State cannot tell us the pupil-teacher ratio in every local education authority? Will he seriously consider pupil-teacher ratios and ask himself whether he is giving us the true facts?

Sir Keith Joseph: We have to rely on figures from local education authorities and from 26,000 schools be fore we can compile the statistics.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Schoolteachers

Mr. Andrews F. Bennett: asked the Prime Minister to what extent Her Majesty's Government assess the numbers of schoolteachers expected to be made redundant in the next three years.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): Our expenditure plans make provision for teachers expected to retire early, including those who do so on grounds of redundancy, as well as for some redundancies among teachers under the age of 50.

Mr. Bennett: Has the Prime Minister had an opportunity to read the recent HMI report on schools and on the falling standards in education? If so, what plans do the Government have to reverse that trend and, in


particular, to employ more teachers instead of pushing so many of them into joining the increasing ranks of the unemployed?

The Prime Minister: I do not agree that standards are falling all over. Indeed, in some areas standards are rising. In addition, I would not equate standards in schools with the numbers of teachers, but rather with their calibre. The hon. Gentleman's point cannot be equated with numbers, because the overall pupil-teacher ratio improved from 18·9 in January 1979 to 18·5 in January 1982.

Mr. Dover: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if a reduction of only 10,000 in the number of teachers is required next year, the natural wastage of 2½ per cent. is not unreasonable, compared with private sector wastage?

The Prime Minister: Obviously we prefer as many redundancies as possible to be the result of natural wastage, but that is not always possible, because one must look at curriculum distribution as well as at numbers.

Mr. Flannery: Is it not a fact that Tory Members realise the advantage to be gained from small classes, because they send their children to schools that have a much lower pupil-teacher ratio than that found in the ordinary schools to which our children go? Is it not also a fact that the education cuts are now so horrific that teachers in every staff room in our ordinary schools are fearful that they will be made redundant, and that the cuts are so deep that our children's education—[Interruption.] The truth of my point is evidenced by the desire on the part of Tory Members to shut me up. Is it not the case that the cuts are so deep that our children's education and the whole fabric of State education is now in severe danger, as is shown by the HMI report?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there will be a fall of approximately 1 million in pupil numbers and, therefore, there must be a similar and proportionate fall in the number of teachers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] In many ways, I wish that more children stayed at school voluntarily beyond the age of 16. It would be infinitely preferable if they did so. There are many places available for them and it would be far better for them, rather than leaving school at 16. The hon. Gentleman has just heard me say that the overall pupil-teacher ratio has improved since the Labour Government, and the amount spent in real terms per pupil is approximately the same.

Engagements

Mr. Dubs: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her public engagements for 20 July.

The Prime Minister: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today.

Mr. Dubs: In the light of today's record unemployment total of 3,191,000, does the Prime Minister agree that a change of economic policy would be preferable to her attempt to justify one in seven of our work force on the dole? Does she remember a speech that she made three years ago when she said:
There is nothing inevitable about rising unemployment.

The Prime Minister: Provided that we keep inflation coming down—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and provided

that our companies, industries and firms become more and more competitive and produce goods of the kind that people want to buy, that statement is true. However, there is no way of returning to full employment unless we are efficient, competitive and produce attractive goods.

Mr. Ashton: Wriggle.

Sir Bernard Braine: Have the organisers of next Monday's service at St. Paul's Cathedral said to my right hon. Friend whether prayers will be offered for the earlier victims of the junta—many thousands of whom included British subjects—and whether the prayers will be for the early release of such people, or at least for some identification of where the bodies of the dead lie?

The Prime Minister: I do not believe that that will come into the service—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because it is a service of thanksgiving for the liberation of the Falkland Islands and of remembrance of the fallen. During that service we shall remember all the fallen and all of those who have given their lives so that freedom and justice might continue.

Mr. Foot: The minds of all hon. Members are overcast by the bomb outrages that have occurred in London today. I make it clear from the Opposition Benches that while we understand that the IRA has claimed responsibility for those crimes, our view is that no political question in this democratic country should be settled by resort to such pitiless barbarity. We shall utterly oppose it by every possible means.
I was proposing to ask the Prime Minister several questions on the terrible unemployment figures. I hope that she has some influence with the Leader of the House in this matter. Will she give us a guarantee that there will be a full debate on the appalling unemployment figures, the highest ever recorded in the history of this country? Will she give us an assurance that there will be a debate in Government time before the House rises for the recess?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his initial remarks. The whole House is shocked by the bomb explosions that occurred in London earlier today. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will make a statement later. We all join in extending our deepest sympathy to the families of those who were killed as well as to the many who were injured. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that these callous 'and cowardly crimes have been committed by evil and brutal men who know nothing of democracy. We shall not rest until they are brought to justice.
With regard to the other matter that the right hon. Gentleman raised, I agree that the unemployment figures are disturbing. I am not sure what the timetable is for debates next week or how the right hon. Gentleman is placed with regard to Supply days. Perhaps that can be discussed in the usual way.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will my right hon. Friend take time to note how pleased many constituents are at the fact that jobs have been saved by the decision of ASLEF members to return to work? Will she note that much credit is given to her for her firm leadership in that matter, which contrasts most favourably with the pusillanimous conduct of the Leader of the Opposition?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We all welcome the end of the strike and regard it as the first step on the long road back to efficient working


practices. I agree with my hon. Friend. The end of the strike has saved many jobs. Nevertheless, it has been a costly and damaging strike from which British Rail and all who work in it will have to make the maximum effort to recover.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the right hon. Lady have a moment to note the delay of three weeks which occurred in commencing the investigation of the evidence that I placed before her and the House on 29 June? Will she recognise that this is a sign of the determination of the Northern Ireland Office to conceal the true context and cause of the Northern Ireland Bill until the parliamentary recess comes to its rescue?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will know that we received the information at No. 10, to which he referred in a debate in the House, on 30 June. After that the head of the Civil Service was asked to arrange for the author of the note to be interviewed. That was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. on 13 July. A letter of invitation was sent on 15 July. It is hoped that the interview that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to take place will take place in the next few days.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Does the right hon. Lady not recognise that present policies will not bring down unemployment for years ahead? Nor is it enough to talk about competitiveness, which is important, but which, in any event is worse than when she took over three and a half years ago. What is needed is Government stimulus in a form that will increase and not reduce business confidence. Will she provide that, or will she try to live with over 3 million unemployed for as long as she can stay in office?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman agrees that competitiveness is important. So do I. We recovered a great deal last year on the previous two years. It is implicit in what the right hon. Gentleman says that we have not yet recovered enough. I thank him for agreeing with me on that point.
Unemployment is indeed an international problem, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. It is rising faster in Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium, the United States and Germany than in this country. With regard to what he said about stimulating demand, he will be aware that the Socialist Government of France has done just that and come a cropper. Real domestic demand in the six months to the end of the first quarter of this year was almost 3 per cent. higher than for the same period a year earlier. Nevertheless, as a result of that increased demand, there was only a 2 per cent. increase in exports and about a 12 per cent. increase in imports. That does not produce more jobs in this country.

Gibraltar

Mr. Latham: asked the Prime Minister whether she will pay an official visit to Gibraltar to discuss with residents of the colony the situation arising from Spain's decision not to open the frontier and the reaffirmed decision of Her Majesty's Government to close the naval dockyard.

The Prime Minister: I have no plans at present to visit Gibraltar. My noble Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs leaves tomorrow for a two-day visit. During his stay he will be discussing the matters that my hon. Friend mentions in his question.

Mr. Latham: We welcome the slight easing of border restrictions over the last week or so, by Spain, but will my right hon. Friend help morale in Gibraltar by giving two assurances today: first, that Britain will give real and generous help to the colony when the naval dockyard shuts; and, secondly that there can be no question of Spain entering the Common Market as long as the frontier remains closed?

The Prime Minister: With regard to my hon. Friend's first point about help for the Gibraltar dockyard, some repair work arising out of the South Atlantic operation may be sent there. In addition, we are considering with the Gibraltar Government whether a commercial dockyard operation can be established. If it can, any surplus dockyard lands and assets that are required will be transferred to Gibraltar free of charge, subject to parliamentary approval. With regard to my hon. Friend's second point, it is inconceivable that there should ever be a closed border between the territories of two members of the Community. Spain could not, therefore, enter the Community unless the border were fully opened.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: I appreciate that the Prime Minister cannot personally visit Gibraltar, but will she ensure that when the Secretary of State for Defence draws up his next defence review—which we are given to understand will be published later in the year—he will take into account the use that has been made of the Gibraltar dockyard and the sterling service that has been given by the people of Gibraltar and the workers in that dockyard during the recent Falklands crisis? Does she agree that it is a bit hard that many of those people are being thrown out of a job, especially when work is badly needed there?

The Prime Minister: The Government have no plans to alter the decision to close the Royal dockyard in 1983. I have said that if arrangements can be made for it to become a commercial dockyard, assets would be transferred free of charge, subject to the approval of the House. We would see whether we could put some repair work into that dockyard.

Security

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief statement on a security matter.
On 15 July, Geoffrey Arthur Prime was charged with an offence under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911. Mr. Prime joined the staff of Government communications headquarters in 1968 after service in the Royal Air Force and resigned in September 1977. He has not been employed in the public service since that time.
Any charge under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act is, of course, serious and must give rise to concern. The House will understand, however, that until trial proceedings are completed I cannot, for obvious reasons, make any statement or answer questions on this case or on related matters.
Any security issues that arise will be referred as necessary to the security commission in accordance with the arrangements described to the House by my predecessors on 23 January 1964 and on 10 May 1965.
The House will naturally be concerned to know whether any other persons are likely to be charged in this connection. Absolute certainty is never possible in these matters. I can only say that if evidence against other persons were to emerge, it would be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions who, after consultations with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, would consider whether to bring charges.
Until the outcome of the proceedings is known, there is nothing that I can add to what I have said.

Mr. Michael Foot: I thank the right hon. Lady for making a statement. I fully understand her difficulties about saying anything that is contradictory to the sub judice rule. Nevertheless, it would not have been satisfactory for the House to have had no statement on the matter, especially in the light of the apparent efforts of Government sources at the weekend to make it clear that serious issues were involved. Many headlines in the newspapers of Friday and Saturday could be attributed to what the Government had suggested.
The right hon. Lady mentioned the possibility of referring matters to the security commission. Has she already done so? The House would want the inquiry to be instituted at the earliest possible date.
Did the security services stumble on the evidence on which Mr. Prime was charged, or was the evidence gathered as a result of security service vigilance? In the light of what the Government said at the weekend, I believe that the House should have a fuller statement from the right hon. Lady on both of those questions.

The Prime Minister: With regard to the type of evidence for which the right hon. Gentleman asks, it would be most unwise for me to make any further reference to that case. I would help the right hon. Gentleman if I could, but my first duty is to ensure that the case is properly tried in the courts and that I do not say anything that could act as a hindrance to that proper and fair trial.
With regard to any reference to the security commission, the right hon. Gentleman will know that I am not able to comment. If he examines previous statements to the House he will understand why. He will know that

the security commission report that was laid before the House recently was made after the case to which I have referred and after that person had left the Government communications headquarters.
I am not responsible for what headlines say, but any charge under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act is serious.

Mr. Foot: I fully understand that the right hon. Lady is not responsible for headlines. Nevertheless, will she make an inquiry into the suggestions that were made to the newspapers by her own Government offices? I think that she will find that what I have said is correct.

The Prime Minister: My office would have been every bit as careful about the rule of sub judice as I have been today.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister said quite clearly that
there is nothing that I can add to what I have said.
I shall follow the precedent of my predecessors. Throughout my period in the House when security has been involved, there has been a statement and exchanges and the matter has been left there.

Mr. Bob Cryer: rose—

Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You referred to exchanges. I wonder whether you will allow those exchanges to involve several hon. Members.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am exercising the discretion that the House has vested in me for these occasions. If the House will look up the references to my predecessors, it will find that they have always taken the view that, on security matters, an exchange is allowed between the two Front Benches. I have no desire to silence the House, but I desire to observe the Prime Minister's statement.

Mr. Beith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I must ask you to consider the fact that you called a representative of the official Opposition to ask questions on the statement. To be fair to other parties that are represented in the House. I hope that you will agree that representatives of those other parties would be no less careful than the Leader of the Opposition to respect both the interests of the country's security and the sub judice rule.

Mr. Speaker: It is quite clear that there are eight parties in the House. That would mean another eight questions—if I count independents, as I do for my own purposes. Even one hon. Member on his own has rights. It would be easier for me to call hon. Members to complete questions so that we can move on to the next statement. Nevertheless, the House would be well advised—

Mr. Beith: No.

Mr. Speaker: —to support the attitude that I have taken.

Mr. Beith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You know that I would not raise the matter in this way were I not anxious to safeguard the rights of minority parties. I should like you to consider two points, Mr. Speaker. First, the exclusion phrase that you read out was


in the early part of the Prime Minister's statement and it referred only to those matters that preceded it, not to the latter part of her statement.
Secondly, hon. Members who have tabled questions that have been accepted as in order by the Table Office ought not to be excluded from asking the Prime Minister questions.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have discretion on these matters, but may I suggest that it would be helpful if you could review the position? These questions have been raised, at least in part, because there is not much accountability to the House at all on security matters. I am not asking for details. I am talking about general policy and direction.
That immunity from accountability to the House may well be giving rise to some of the slack set operations and accusations that seem to be taking place. If the consensus not to allow questions of any kind is to continue, the House will be abrogating its responsiblity as the most important body to which the Government are accountable in the final analysis on all aspects of their operations.

Mr. Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to look afresh at the precedents in this matter? One of the reasons why I urged that the Prime Minister should make a statement was not simply that I wished to put questions myself but that I believed that many hon. Members in other parts of the House would wish to ask questions. Indeed, during the weekend, partly as a result of action that the Government themselves had taken, many of my hon. Friends were asking and putting down questions.
It seems to me, therefore, that this should be looked at afresh. Of course the Prime Minister and other Members must guard their words to ensure that they do not offend the rules, but I imagine that there are other precedents apart from the one that you, Mr. Speaker, have cited. If that is so, I believe that the House should have the opportunity tomorrow or Thursday to put further questions.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you not being guided by predecessors who were dealing with national security at a time when it was not in such a fragile condition as it is today or when it was not the occasion of so many statements from the Government? We had one such statement from the Prime Minister on 26 March 1981. This did not happen so frequently in the time of your predecessors. Should not the House, therefore, have the opportunity at least to ask some questions?

Mr. Speaker: I am the servant of the House. I have not the slightest desire to stop hon. Members from asking the most searching questions, but the Prime Minister clearly said in her statement:
Until the outcome of the proceedings is known, there is nothing that I can add to what I have said.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have already spent more than five minutes on points of order. I am trying to do the right thing by the House and by the country.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that it would be very weak to give in now. On the other hand, I know that that is not the important question.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I wish that hon. Members would stop jumping up and down like jacks in the box. If I allow five minutes for questions on this, the pattern of the replies will no doubt become clear. I shall allow five minutes for questions on this until 3.48 by the digital clock and then move on.

Mr. Leo Abse: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is the second successive day—presumably yesterday's statement was also supposed to be a security matter—on which the rights of Back-Bench Members have been severely limited. Yesterday, a statement was made and questions were asked, but no Opposition Member was allowed to challenge a statement that some of us believe substituted public pillorying for penal policy. We were left unable to express—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. It is a point of view on what was said yesterday. If there is a point of order, I shall rule on it.

Mr. Abse: rose—

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Abse.

Mr. Abse: With respect, Mr. Speaker, the issue is when a statement can be regarded as so severe in security terms that hon. Members' rights should be so limited. That was not the case yesterday, and in the judgment of many of us it is not the case today—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Alan Beith.

Mr. Beith: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your consideration. Is the Prime Minister satisfied that an adequate response has been made to the report of the security commission relating to information held on computers? Does she feel that any further reference to the commission needs to be made in respect of the system of positive security vetting?

The Prime Minister: The security commission report had quite a long section on the safety of information in computers. It clearly stated that it was not competent to judge on this matter and recommended that a committee be set up to do so. That committee is in the process of being set up. I am anxious that it should have all the most expert opinion available so that it can look further into this question.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Is the Prime Minister able—[Interruption.] Is the Prime Minister able to inform the House whether or not blackmail and young children are involved in this case?

The Prime Minister: A charge has been made under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act. I cannot go further than that.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do not the questions now arising point to the wisdom of your earlier decision?

Mr. Speaker: That is what I was secretly hoping.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Is the Prime Minister now disavowing the briefing that was given on Friday to the effect that this matter was very grave indeed?


Can she say when the Government first became aware of the fact and the degree of penetration at Cheltenham? Is this another case of the House being informed at a very late stage indeed, and does it not argue for far greater parliamentary accountability of the security services?

The Prime Minister: A charge has been laid. A single charge has been laid under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act—that is to say, a charge against one person. That person worked at the headquarters at Cheltenham. Security arrangements at GCHQ were considered by the security commission in preparing its recent report. No changes were recommended and security remains under constant internal review.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: Is the Prime Minister aware that many of the people who work at GCHQ live in my constituency and that grave perturbation will arise there at the long delay that is now likely to ensue for legal reasons? Cannot a solution to this matter be brought about before November when the man in question is to be charged?

The Prime Minister: We cannot bring the matter to a conclusion until the case has been dealt with in the courts. If my hon. Friend looks back at the arrangements previously made for references to the security commission he will find that there is an arrangement under which I have to confer with the Leader of the Opposition and that if there were any question of a reference before the completion of the case, for obvious public reasons which have previously been set out in Hansard, that could not be publicly announced.

Bomb Incidents

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
I regret to have to inform the House that two bombs have exploded in London today. At 10.43 this morning in Hyde Park a bomb concealed in a car exploded as a mounted squadron of The Queen's Household Cavalry were passing on their way to guard duty. The latest information I have is that three soldiers were killed and a further number were injured, two of them very seriously. The explosion was large and created damage over a significant area. In all 22 people, including soldiers, were taken in ambulances to three hospitals. I understand that some more people were injured but not seriously enough to require hospital treatment. Several horses were killed directly or have had to be destroyed.
Just before 1 pm a further bomb exploded under the bandstand south of the zoo in Regent's Park. The band of the Royal Green Jackets was playing at the time. The latest information I have is that six people were killed and 25 injured.
I understand that the Provisional IRA has, in a telephone call to the BBC in Belfast, admitted responsibility for the explosion in Hyde Park.
I know that I can speak for the whole House in expressing the deepest sympathy for the relatives of the victims of these despicable attacks.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: May I first express, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, our abomination of what has occurred, our sympathy with the injured and our condolences to the relatives of the dead.
Secondly, will the Home Secretary do all that is in his power to ensure the greatest possible vigilance throughout the summer? Bombs planted in a public street and under a holiday bandstand are indiscriminate and loathsome outrages, and I fear that the nation must prepare itself for further such enormities.
Finally, may I say on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends that we are absolutely determined that such murderous mayhem shall not succeed. Our hope is that the perpetrators of these acts will be speedily brought to justice. It is our strong belief that they will be rightly condemned by all the people of this country.

Mr. Whitelaw: I strongly endorse everything that the right hon. Gentleman said, and I am extremely grateful to him for saying that on behalf of the Opposition.
I am grateful also to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition for what he said at the beginning of Prime Minister's questions. There can be no doubt about the utter determination of the House to stand against attacks of this sort. To show evidence to those who perpetrate them that that is what we are doing is one of the most important actions that we in this House can take.
On the second point made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), vigilance is absolutely crucial. The police will do everything that they can to encourage that vigilance and to bring the perpetrators of those acts to justice at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the Government give particular attention to the double pattern of these almost simultaneous outrages? They recall, for example, the almost simultaneous murder of Lord Mountbatten and the murder of 18 soldiers at Warrenpoint. There was also the simultaneous murder of Robert Bradford and the attempt on the life of the Attorney-General. Will the Government recognise that this is evidence not merely of deliberate and expert preparation but also of a calculated political intention?

Mr. Whitelaw: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. He will be the first to appreciate that I support his sentiments from my own personal experience. I hope everyone will note his words and note what we all must do in response to those actions.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: Will my right hon. Friend redouble his efforts—and get his Cabinet colleagues to redouble their efforts, too—to get across to the IRA that, however horrified and shocked we and the country are by the events just reported to the House, the only outcome of these events will be to reinforce the determination of people in all parts of the United Kingdom that the political aims of the IRA will never be achieved by murder and mutilation? Will he also ask the Foreign Secretary to remind the Republic of Ireland Government that the publicly declared aims of the IRA are to destroy by force the Republic of Ireland Government as well as the Northern Ireland Government?

Mr. Whitelaw: I shall certainly make sure that my right hon. Friend's remarks are passed to those of my colleagues who are particularly concerned, and to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary who is sitting beside me now. He will certainly take note of what my right hon. Friend said.
Perhaps I should say, as I have never had the opportunity of doing so previously, that what my right hon. Friend said comes very well from him as someone who stood up with marked success in Northern Ireland against many pressures. I do not believe that he has received the encouragement and support that he deserves for what he did then.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: May I associate myself and my hon. Friends with the expressions of sympathy to the victims and their families. I share the repugnance at these dreadful outrages expressed by other right hon. Members.
May I also, having been close to similar instances as the right hon. Gentleman is now, endorse his determination that we should never give way to these murderous threats. I am confident in his ability, in very difficult circumstances, to provide us with the best possible protection.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said. His remarks, coming from one of my predecessors in what is at times a somewhat difficult office, are very encouraging, and I thank him.

Viscount Cranborne: Did the security services receive any warning that the IRA was again about to start a campaign this side of the water? Will my right hon. Friend agree that his remarks earlier this year on the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974 were entirely justified?

Mr. Whitelaw: On the latter point, I am wholly convinced that the remarks I made about the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act were entirely supported and entirely correct. I am grateful for the widespread support that I have received from both sides of the House for the proposals. It would be unwise for me to comment further on my hon. Friend's first point.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been standing up.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I was in close proximity to the explosion in Hyde Park this morning. I pay tribute to the police, fire brigade and ambulance services who were at the scene at an early stage. Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that although the House may be divided on many issues, it condemns these vicious political crimes that do no good, even to those who might have a cause and might feel an injustice. In fact, they are counter-productive.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's final comments and fully endorse them. As regards his first point, I am indeed thankful that he has paid that tribute, from what he saw on the spot, to those services—the police, fire and ambulance services. Theirs has been a particularly difficult time. It has been a difficult task for them to assemble all the information that I have been able to give to the House. I hope that it is as accurate as it could possibly be at this time.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I echo the sentiments expressed to the injured and the relatives. May I remind my right hon. Friend that it is ironic that the Blues and Royals returned last week from the Falkland Islands after fighting a series of brilliant actions without one casualty only to find that their comrades, riding on ceremonial duty in London suffered appalling casualties from a terrorist. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that every effort is made to ensure that the terrorism does not continue?

Mr. Whitelaw: Loss of life is a tragedy wherever it occurs. I am sure the whole House will agree with that. Everything possible has been done to bring the perpetrators to justice.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Do not these atrocities bring us closer to our fellow subjects in Northern Ireland who suffer such outrages day by day? Will they not serve to strengthen the determination of Government and nation not to be deterred or deflected from the maintenance of the sovereignty of the United Kingdom against all its enemies, within and without?

Mr. Whitelaw: It would be a good thing if that message could be brought home to all those concerned in the way that my hon. Friend has delivered it. I entirely endorse all that he said.

Mr. David Winnick: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that these foul and cowardly murders should be well publicised in the United States so that Irish Americans in particular can understand and appreciate that such atrocities have nothing in common with trying to unite Ireland by persuasion and consent?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those remarks. We do not always agree, but


on this occasion we certainly do. I hope that many hon. Members, as well as many people in the country, will seek to get that message across. It is one of the most difficult of all messages to get across to the people concerned who sometimes appear to be wholly deaf to the obvious facts.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the dreadful bomb outrages in Birmingham, when 23 people were killed, I saw the carnage within a few hours of it happening? Does he also recall that the people responsible were caught because the Irish population, which lived in our midst and had our protection, played its proper part and laid evidence against those dreadful people? As a result, they were caught and properly sentenced. Should we not appeal to those people who have our protection and who enjoy our way of life to play their part and to ensure that this tyranny is not allowed to prosper?

Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the Birmingham incident, about which the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) is well aware. What my hon. Friend said was true then, and I hope that it will be equally true on this occasion.

Mr. William Pitt: I associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Liberal Bench with the expressions of sympathy to the relatives of the victims of this cowardly barbarism. I assure the Home Secretary of our support in all his efforts to bring these

cowardly, barbarous terrorists to justice and, eventually, to remove the scourge of the IRA from the United Kingdom.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said on behalf of the Liberal Party.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: If there is any evidence that the IRA are seeking to take advantage of other security difficulties and the problems of the police service in London at present, will my right hon. Friend give an absolute assurance that it cannot and will not succeed? Will he also redouble the Government's efforts to improve co-operation with the Irish Republic in their effort to combat the IRA, and will he state clearly to the country that those hon. Members who either voted against or refused to support the Prevention of Terrorism Act have given aid and comfort to the enemies of this nation?

Hon. Members: "Rubbish".

Mr. Whitelaw: I shall most certainly do what my hon. Friend has suggested in his main points. As to his last point, I do not wish to see any division in the House at this difficult time. I understand that some hon. Members decided with the best of intentions to vote against the Prevention of Terrorism Act. At the time I made it clear that I thought they were gravely mistaken. I said then that I thought we would encounter the kind of troubles that we are now facing. Nevertheless, those hon. Members have their rights and must examine whether they were right on that occasion. It is not for me to pronounce on their actions.

BILL PRESENTED

TRADE UNION (AMENDMENT)

Mr. J. W. Rooker, supported by Mr. David Stoddart, Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and Mr. Frank Field, presented a Bill to amend the Trade Union Act 1913 in order to provide for each member paying into the political fund the right to a vote in respect of certain elections; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 167.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 4 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &amp;c., (negative procedure)), the Motion relating to Industrial Training may be proceeded with, though opposed, for a period of three hours after it has been entered upon and, if proceedings thereon have not previously been disposed of, Mr. Speaker shall then put forthwith any Questions necessary to dispose of them; and that, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business), the Motions relating to Social Security may be proceeded with, though opposed, for a period of three hours after the first of them has been entered upon, and if proceedings on those Motions have not previously been disposed of, Mr. Speaker shall then put any Question already proposed from the Chair, and any remaining Motions may thereupon be made, and the Questions thereon shall be put forthwith.—[Mr. Thompson.]

MOBILE HOMES (Amendment)

Mr. Nicholas Lye11: I beg to move,
That leave be given in a Bill to amend the law relating to the ownership of mobile homes and terms of tenure of mobile home owners.
On a day when the House has been horrified by the events of the moment, it is nevertheless our duty always to keep in mind the country's deeper underlying problems and to be ready to continue to turn our attention to those matters. I seek to bring before the House a Bill to update and amend the present law on mobile homes.
The existing legislation, which affects at least 150,000 people—that figure is probably substantially out of date as many new sites have been developed since the Act was introduced in 1975—runs out next year. The object of the Bill is to build upon what was done in the previous legislation which was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services. It seeks to remedy the many flaws and loopholes that exist in that otherwise benign legislation and to create a truly fair balance between the interests of those who live in mobile homes and those who operate the sites.
More than 150,000 people live in these small dwellings—something between a caravan and a prefab—which are scarcely mobile except with the assistance of an enormous crane. Nevertheless, such dwellings provide excellent housing and independence for hundreds of thousands of people.
The problem is that, while the homes are owned by the home owner, the sites on which they rest are owned by the site owner and operator. As a result, there is a conflict of interest which at present is not properly balanced in existing legislation. Some of the worst scandals have been highlighted by Esther Rantzen and the BBC "Checkpoint" programme, but the points that I wish to raise are much more fundamental and go the root of the defects in the Act. They affect not just the activities of the fringe and unscrupulous operators, but almost all operators.
The basis of the present legislation is that the home owner should have an agreement. Provided he does so, he is in many ways well protected. However, only 30 per cent. of existing home owners—even that may be an exaggeration—have such agreements. Without such an agreement, one has no protection. If one is in the hands of an unscrupulous site operator—I repeat that such operators are in a minority—one can be held over a barrel, be told to vacate or be forced to sell one's home at a knockdown price only to see it sold by the site operator at a massive profit.
Even if such a home owner is in the hands of one of the large majority of reputable site owners, if he does not have an agreement, he is likely to find that as a condition of keeping his home on site he is expected to pay not merely the 15 per cent. commission—that can be £1,500 on a £10,000 mobile home, and many are worth twice that amount—but also an extra 10 per cent. simply as a forfeit to be allowed to pass on his tenure to his successor. If he does not do so, he can lose everything, because a mobile home without the right to leave it on site is virtually worthless.
The Bill seeks to ensure that all mobile home owners; have an agreement in model form. It will remove the onus


on the home owner to ensure that he gets an agreement. Instead, it proposes a deemed agreement that will apply in all cases where it is not positively and deliberately refused by the home owner after he has had its importance drawn to his attention.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Has my hon. and learned Friend considered whether within the definition of moble homes he should include houseboats in relation to security of tenure at their moorings?

Mr. Lyell: My hon. Friend knows more about that subject than I do, but there may well be a close parallel between the two. In principle, I am sure that my hon. Friend will be glad to follow me down the same route.
There is a second problem of finding a proper way of negotiating a fair market rent for the tenure of the site on which the mobile home sits. Under the existing legislation, there is supposed to be consultation, but that is not working in practice and all too many site owners simply increase rents almost at whim, sometimes with the deliberate purpose of harassing their tenants. There is no way of remedying that position.
My Bill will provide a simple but formalised way in which, before rents are raised, there is consultation in which the site owner has to make it perfectly clear who he is, what his address is and how he can be contacted, and which provides an opportunity to go to an independent third party to arbitrate as to what is a fair market rent in the event that there cannot be agreement.
My Bill will not go down the road of rent control as we understand it in housing legislation. There is no need for that, and it would cause the supply of a very beneficial type of home ownership to dry up, but there is a need for a fair structure to ensure that the rights of site operators—those who own the sites—and the rights of mobile home owners are equally balanced.
My Bill will also deal with other problems such as the excessive charges that are sometimes made for producing purely standard agreements, to ensure that site owners display their names and addresses on the site, and to remedy the present position whereby the local authorities, who are apparently the only people entitled to bring any harassment case before the court, have that exclusive privilege removed from them, so that cases of true harassment can be brought more easily. I believe that the chief public health officers are unduly reluctant to act at the present time.
Members of the public will realise that the chances of a Ten-Minute Bill, introduced at this stage in the Session, becoming law are somewhat less than a racing certainty. Nevertheless, it is my hope that, if I have leave to introduce the Bill, the tabling of it will blaze a small trail which I hope that the Government may be induced to follow in the coming Session.

Mr. Speaker: Before I put the Question, I must tell the House that I allowed the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) to interrupt his hon. Friend, whereas the whole House is aware that a Ten-Minute Bill is heard without intervention. I apologise for not stopping the hon. Member for Twickenham.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Nicholas Lyell, Mr. Nicholas Baker, Mr. John Heddle and Mr. John Hannam.

MOBILE HOMES (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Nicholas Lyell accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the ownership of mobile homes and terms of tenure of mobile home owners: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 168.]

National Health Service (Pay Dispute)

Mr. Reg Race: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
Leave having been given on Monday 19 July under Standing Order No. 9 to discuss:
Industrial action to be undertaken by one million National Health Service staff.
I believe that hon. Members in all parts of the House will wish to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity of having a debate today on what is clearly a most important matter.
One million National Health Service workers are taking industrial action today and tomorrow, and they did so yesterday.
Before I go any further in describing the origins of the dispute, the House will want to know the action that the trade unions in the NHS have taken in response to the outrageous bomb incidents which have taken place today in central London.
The National Union of Public Employees, by which I am a sponsored Member, has instructed its members, at all the relevant hospitals in central London to which the injured are being taken to resume normal working immediately in order to support those who have been injured in the cowardly attacks by the Provisional IRA. That action shows the real merit of the National Health Service workers who are prepared to undertake a difficult and dangerous job and to support members of the public whenever they are called upon to do so.
The position is exactly the same as in 1973, when the IRA bombing attack on central London took place. Exactly the same reaction was forthcoming from the trade unions and the workers in the hospitals at that time.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: rose—

Mr. Race: I am not prepared to give way at the moment. I have not yet begun to establish my case.
The basic reason for the dispute is the appalling level of low pay in the National Health Service. Many NHS workers perform filthy jobs. They wash the filthiest sheets in Britain. They wash the sheets of the incontinent patients. They wash the blood-stained sheets of those who have had operations performed on them in NHS hospitals. They also perform dirty and often unpleasant jobs such as stoking boilers in the NHS hospitals. They are often required to work on a 24-hour rotating shift or alternating shift basis. They work unsocial hours, because the whole character of the NHS is that it is a 24-hour, seven-days-a-week, round-the-clock operation.
In return for those difficult conditions of work, the workers—whether they be nurses, ancillary staff, ambulance crews, or the administrative and clerical staff who support the nurses and medical staff on the wards—are all low paid, not only in relation to the social usefulness of the work they perform but in absolute terms. Many hospital workers today are taking home wages which are a disgrace in 1982.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), in our earlier debates on the matter, raised several individual constituency cases which the Secretary of State at the time was unable to refute. We could all bring wage slips to the debate this afternoon, but I want to concentrate on what the Government have been saying

about the National Health Service pay statistics, because I think that they have been attempting to mislead the public about the way in which NHS pay is determined and about the level of pay in the NHS.
This is not a new problem; it has arisen over many years. As long ago as 1967, the old National Board for Prices and Incomes, in its report No. 29, described the Health Service workers as one of the lowest paid groups of workers in the country, and that is still true today.
It is also true that in the present dispute the difficulties faced by patients and the public have been greatly exacerbated by the Government's own stupid actions. It is a disgrace that the Government have sought to divide and rule the workers in the National Health Service. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) made that point very clearly in her contribution to our previous proceedings.
The Government were clearly hoping to be able to rely on the Royal College of Nursing's ballot result to get them out of their difficulties. They believed that, with a little intimidation from themselves through the media, they would be able to persuade nurses to vote in favour of the Government's initial pay offer. They fell flat on their faces because nurses—and, indeed, other Health Service staff—were not prepared to be intimidated by the Government's words. They wanted a decent pay settlement. Therefore, the Government's divide and rule tactics failed in that regard.
The Secretary of State had separate meetings with the Royal College of Nursing in order to try to divide the RCN from the trade unions represented on the TUC health services committee. The Government have tried also to divide and rule the 1 million Health Service workers by making different pay offers to different sorts of staff. They have sought to establish a premium between nurses and ancillary workers.
The Government in their deepest heart of hearts may wish to be the nurses' friend but they are not prepared to pay up. They are not prepared to make a decent pay offer to the 1 million Health Service workers. No amount of juggling with figures can disguise the low pay of these workers. That is especially significant in view of increased productivity and the "flat" character of the numbers who work in the Health Service. Apart from the adjustment to meet the reduction in nurses' hours from 40 a week, employment in the Health Service has been static over the past few years.
The Government pretend that the nation cannot afford a decent wage settlement for Health Service workers because they are pumping in resources for the service. That is nothing but a brutal con trick. The Government are doing nothing of the sort. They are undermining the Health Service by cutting the future level of provision by closing wards. They have done it in my constituency and I have no doubt that they have done the same in the constituencies of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. For the Government to say that they are protecting the Health Service is nothing more than a sick joke.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be useful at this stage to remind the Government that they have accused NHS workers of causing pain and suffering and at the same time they have closed hospitals, or reduced the number of beds available in them? It has been revealed that the Government refuse to make good a £750,000 deficit in the London area and


that as a result the Royal Marsden hospital is threatened with having to remove 33 beds that are presently used by cancer patients. So much for all the suffering that the Government accuse Health Service workers of causing. The Government are callous and brutal for the sake of a few pounds.

Mr. Race: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that contribution, which is entirely correct. It is significant that journalists on The Sun, the Daily Express and the Daily Mail do not write stories about the closure of cancer wards when the Secretary of State is responsible. They report these matters only when they are alleged to be the result of industrial action by Health Service workers.
The dispute is linked to the different treatment that Health Service workers are experiencing when compared with other groups of workers in the public sector. When the Government say how generous they have been to Health Service workers they quote the pay increase that has been given to civil servants. They say that civil servants have been given an extra 5·9 per cent. In fact they have been given 6·5 per cent. when account is taken of their increased holiday entitlement. The Government do not mention the 7·5 per cent. increase for local authority manual workers, the 8·6 per cent. increase for miners, the 9·1,per cent. increase, plus increased holiday entitlement for water workers, the 10·1 per cent. increase for firemen, the 13–2 per cent. increase for police, the 14·3 per cent. increase for senior civil servants and the 18 per cent. increase for senior judges.
We know how the next pay round is shaping. There was a large discrepancy in the pay increases given to the police and Health Service workers last year. There is potentially a large discrepancy in the next pay round. We know that the Police Federation will soon be settling with the Government the pay round to begin in September 1982. According to the pay formula which has been established for the police, they are due to receive a pay increase of 10·2 per cent. That is what they will be offered in September if the Government keep their word. There is a discrepancy in the current pay round and there is a prospective discrepancy between the special case that the Government have established for public servants such as the police and the case for Health service workers in the next pay round. That is crucial when we consider the future of the present dispute.
The percentage pay rises that are offered to Health Service staff do not reflect the real character of the cash increases that are in prospect for them. The Government's improved pay offer provides the additional princely sum of 39p a week for an auxiliary nurse. A senior nursing officer, the most senior grade in the nurses and midwives Whitley Council agreement, will receive an increase of only 89p a week. That is the new element that the Government are offering.
Those figures must be compared with the cash increases that others receive. The full 7·5 per cent. increase for an auxiliary nurse produces an increase before stoppages of £4·92 a week. The 6 per cent. increase for a Health Service domestic yields an extra £3·54 a week. The House will be pleased to know that the 4 per cent. increase for Members of Parliament will provide an extra £10·57 a week.

However, the Secretary of State in receiving his 4 per cent. increase will enjoy not £3·54, not £4·92, not £10·57 but an extra £27·98 a week.
These figures make it clear that percentages do not mean a thing. Percentage pay settlements will always produce small increases for the lowest paid workers in the country. If Health Service staff receive the same cash increase as the right hon. Gentleman, it will mean a pay increase for a laundry worker of 46 per cent. and 32 per cent. for a staff nurse.
I wish to place on record my debt to the chairman of the Conservative parliamentary trade union committee, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton). He has expressed the issue far better than I could possibly do. In the Mid Sussex Times on 11 June 1982, having met a delegation of Health Service workers in his constituency, he stated:
Their wages are really very low. They are not receiving anything like the £104 which is quoted as the average wage either before or after tax. To those people a 4 per cent. offer is not going to pay the increase in rents or bus fares.
That is what the hon. Gentleman thought about the Government's initial offer. I suspect that his views have not been adjusted or mollified by the Government's latest offer.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) will still vote Tory.

Mr. Race: We must remember that we are talking about increases for Health Service staff before anything is taken from their wage packets. The money that a nurse receives in his or her wage packet is important and so are the deductions for lodging charges that are made by area health authorities. If we assume that the 6 per cent. offer is accepted, the lodging charges that will be implemented at the same time will mean that some resident nurses will be worse off than before the increase. That is an outrage and a disgrace of which the House, and especially the right hon. Gentleman, should be ashamed.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Is my hon. Friend aware that the proposed board and lodging charges will mean that a ward sister will receive £36 a year less than her present wage even after she has received a 7·5 per cent. increase?

Mr. Race: My hon. Friend is right. That is the figure which I have in my notes. I have abbreviated my speech because I am aware that many of my hon. Friends want to catch the eye of the Chair.
There are 380,000 nurses receiving less than the maximum earnings of a State registered nurse. The Government always quote the maximum when talking about the average increase for the average nurse. The figure that they quote is always the figure at the top of the State registered nurse scale. Some 380,000 nurses are below that point, which is the vast majority of the nursing work force.
Nurses are so badly affected because not only is their pay determined by the Government's policy of cash limits, but they lack earnings opportunities. The gap between the rate of pay for a nurse and the earnings of a nurse is limited, because there is no opportunity for increased overtime and plus payments because of the character of the work that they do.
I also wish to place on record my concern that the Government are seeking grossly to mislead the House


about the figures of pay for ancillary staff. They continually trot out, as they did in the last debate, a figure of £104·17 gross earnings a week for full-time male workers and £84·02 for female workers. I do not quibble with those figures. They are right, but what the Secretary of State does not tell the House is that 50·5 per cent. of ancillary staff are not full-timers. They are part-time workers, and average earnings for part-time workers—perhaps the Secretary of State will confirm this—are not £104 a week, but £42·50 a week. Thus, half of the ancillary workers in the country are receiving average earnings of £43·50 a week.

Mr. George Foulkes: The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) is a part-time worker.

Mr. Race: If we compare that to the position of workers in the economy as a whole, we see that even the full-time male worker in ancillary work is earning nothing like the earnings of an average full-time male worker. In April 1981, the last date for which we have figures, a full-time male worker was earning the princely sum of £140·50 a week. Even on the best construction that the Secretary of State can put on ancillary staff pay, they are still £36 behind the average earnings of male workers.
The important point that the Government always press when describing their policy in this pay round is that, although they may not be able to offer increased pay now, nevertheless there will be jam tomorrow for somebody. It is important that we discuss today precisely what that "jam tomorrow" policy amounts to. I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the speech made by his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently, when he described the pay norm that he believes should operate in the next pay round. He said then that the pay norm that he wanted to see established was nil per cent.
In that context, generous treatment for the nurses or the ancillary staff may be a pay increase of 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. That is generosity in the future. Not only do we have on record the Chancellor of the Exchequer's predictions about the future course of pay, but we have the Government's document about the future character of pay negotiations for nurses and other Health Service workers. In the document submitted to the trade unions in February 1982, the Government did several things. They rejected a pay determination system based on comparability between Health Service workers and others because, they said,
it ignores the need to relate the size of pay increases to what can be afforded".
They also rejected indexation and a policy of a basket of analogues.
Even the Government's tentative commitment to doing something about the National Health Service pay in the future is undermined by this and other statements in this document. I wish to put on record what the document says, because it is only if one reads the Financial Times that one realises what the Government intend. The Government do not want Health Service workers to know what they have in store for them.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): The hon. Gentleman must stop talking such complete, misleading rubbish. The document was sent to the trade unions, as he will know, so it would be peculiar if we were trying to disguise it.

Mr. Race: Yes, the document was sent to the trade unions, and that is why I know about it, but the mass of Health Service workers have to rely on proceedings in the House, and they may have been led by the Secretary of State to believe that something pleasant is in store for them in the future. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene to tell me that that is not so, I shall be glad to give way, but it seems that he does not wish to do so.
The document of February 1982 said that, in any future system of collective bargaining in the NHS, market forces must be respected. The Government talked about
The extent to which the recruitment … position is more or less favourable for nurses than it is for occupations chosen as analogues".
That shows me, with my suspicious mind, that it is being argued that if there are not many unemployed nurses, nurses' pay is not as bad as it might have been thought to be. On recruitment and retention, the document says that the Government must consider
In absolute tents, the extent to which health authorities are finding it easy or difficult to recruit and retain nurses 
On affordability, a crucial point in the Government's policy, they said:
The principle of 'affordability' must be reflected in any new system; and the main practical problem is how to reconcile cash limits on public expenditure with the Government's responsibilities as an employer".
If that is their policy, where is the jam tomorrow, and where are the commitments that nurses and other Health Service workers can look forward to, if they accept what the Government have on offer for this pay round?
The NHS workers can have no confidence in the future arrangements proposed by the Government, because the Government have no intention of increasing public expenditure in the NHS an a substantial way. The Government are not prepared to increase the pay of NHS staff and they hide behind their alleged commitments to increase the level of expenditure in the NHS, a commitment that we all know to be false.
We can have no confidence in the Government's intentions on long-term pay. The principle of affordability means that the Government will veto negotiated increases when they are politically unacceptable. We have a precedent for the Government's actions because we are concerned not only with the future but also with the past. As they continually tell us, the Government implemented the Clegg report on nurses' and other Health Services staff, and did so because of an election commitment. However, they changed the Clegg commission's terms of reference in November 1980 and later abolished it. They stated a number of clear principles by which they wanted the Clegg commission to be guided.
It is important that we know that today, because I suspect that any future pay arrangements for NHS workers will reflect the position that the Government took in 1980. At that time, the Government said that there should be no historical comparisons between the pay of Health Service workers now and the pay of Health Service workers in the past. It would not be possible for trade unions or staff associations to put in pay claims with any chance of success and obtain increases that would get back to the level of pay in relation to other groups of workers that they had enjoyed in the past.
That is of some significance to the Health Service workers, because in 1974 the Halsbury committee awarded a rate of pay of £30 a week minimum for a student nurse, which at that lime was a basic rate of two thirds of


national average earnings. If the trade unions put in a claim for the two thirds now, it would be greater than the level of claim established so far by the trade unions in this pay round.
When the Government tell this House and the trade union movement that the trade unions have not moved on the issue, I must disagree with them. The trade unions have moved, and did so before the pay round even began. They changed their negotiating position and did not put in a claim for getting back to the position of 1974, or anything like it.
It was not only historical comparisons that were out in 1980. The Government also maintained that job for job comparisons were the only acceptable form of comparison. The only method of comparison acceptable to the Government at the time and no doubt now would be that between a nurse in the National Health Service and a nurse outside it. There could be no comparison between a nurse in the NHS and the pay of senior civil servants, judges, the police or, indeed, the average earnings of manual and non-manual workers in society as whole.
How is it proposed, on these criteria, to close the gap between the level of pay in the economy as a whole and the level of pay of low-paid workers? These criteria established a level of pay that was immutable. In other words, the Government were saying that the National Health Service nurses could not compare themselves with the rest of the economy. They could only compare themselves with other workers doing the same kind of job outside the National Health Service.
That was not all. A principle was established in the instructions to the Clegg commission in 1980 that its report should make no reference to the going rate in that particular pay round. Under this regime, Health Service workers would not be able to argue that because the Secretary of State received a £27 a week wage increase they should have something akin to it. That kind of comparison would be completely out.
Again, no comparisons would be available between the general level of pay or earnings and the pay of Health Service staff. The Government emphasised in the document, as they have emphasised ever since, the principle of trading off job security and pension rights in the public sector against the level of wages. That has been done consistently. The Government have followed that principle over the Megaw report on the Civil Service, over index-linked pensions and in a number of disputes in the public sector. Their attitude to the Health Service workers is exactly the same. The Government stated in 1980 and still no doubt say, "We will not give you a decent rate of pay because we regard your job as safer and your pensions as better. We do not think that you deserve a proper wage increase to get you out of low pay."
The Government's so-called new proposals for dealing with long-term pay arrangements for National Health Service workers, given to the trade unions and the staff associations in February 1982, are nothing more than a rehash of their instructions to the Clegg commission in 1980. Those instructions had a disastrous effect at the time. They will not produce any new arrangements that would be of benefit to National Health Service workers.
We have an important job to do this afternoon. We on the Opposition Benches want to express our full support for the National Health Service workers who are taking

industrial action. I say that without equivocation. It is important that hon. Members should support those people who are the lowest paid in society, who are being treated badly and who have been driven to taking industrial action.
The words of the Secretary of State about the attitudes of National Health Service workers in this dispute are a disgrace to the House. The right hon. Gentleman must know how National Health Service workers feel about patients and the public for whom they work. They have always felt that they are being blackmailed by any Government. They believe that a full service should be provided at all times in the interests of patients. That is why they are reluctant to take industrial action of any kind. For the Secretary of State to brand them as mindless wreckers intent only on attacking patients is a disgrace. The right hon. Gentleman should withdraw those words and give the Health Service workers a decent pay settlement.
If the Secretary of State wants to do something constructive today, he should get the trade unions and staff associations around the table and make them an improved offer that will deal with low pay. The right hon. Gentleman should also recognise that the trade unions have moved from the position that they occupied before the claims were submitted. The claims that have been submitted are for increases of 12 per cent. The Secretary of State has continually misled the House by stating that the claims were for 20 per cent. That is a fabrication. It is just not true.
The right hon. Gentleman has added on every small piece of the claim for improved and unspecified holiday entitlement and for other unspecified improvements in conditions of service. I want to know how the Secretary of State can cost these when the staff side has not told him what it wants. The figure of 20 per cent. is moonshine. The right hon. Gentleman knows it is statistical nonsense. He should recognise that the claim is for 12 per cent. and try to meet it, in the interests of patients, by making an improved offer.

Mr. Richard Needham: In my constituency, large numbers of people working in the private manufacturing sector have not received increases of 6 per cent. or 12 per cent. They have had nothing for year after year. Why on earth should those in the National Health Service have more and so continue to put at risk those in my constituency who have had nothing?

Mr. Race: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I have already quoted the figure for the police. If their pay formula is honoured, the police will receive a 10·2 per cent. increase that is related to the increase in average earnings. It may be true that some workers have not received any pay increase this year. Who is to blame? It is due to the recession that the Government have perpetrated on the workers of this country.
It ill behoves the hon. Gentleman to say that his constituents have to put up with a nil pay increase and that for that reason low paid workers should also receive nothing. My argument is that the low paid and the people who work in his constituency should begin to receive wage increases that would get us out of the recession. I know that this is what the hon. Gentleman also believes. He is one of the famous "wets" on the Government Benches.
The Government must realise that there is no obstacle to a common settlement in percentage terms for ancillary


staff and nurses in 1982. Mr. Trevor Clay, the recently elected general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, was reported in the Financial Times on 12 July as saying that many of its members felt that the varied offers to Health Service staff were divisive. According to the report, Mr. Clay said that nurses may not continue to insist on higher rises than those for other Health Service workers. That is the green light for the Government to go ahead.
This dispute shows in clear and brutal terms the Government's own political priorities. They are prepared to spend undisclosed huge sums on sending the task force to the Falklands. They are prepared to spend £10 billion on Trident nuclear missiles. But they are not prepared to pay the Health Service workers a decent wage. This dispute will not go away. It is now the focus for the whole trade union movement. It is time for the Government to act. The Secretary of State has proved by his actions over the last few weeks that he is too small for his boots. He should pay the Health Service workers or resign.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): I start by agreeing with one point that the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) made. It is right to pay tribute to the speedy response of the London ambulance service and the hospital staff dealing with the appalling incidents that took place in London today. I shall have more to say about that in a moment. I profoundly challenge the entirety of his speech that began with the motion that he has tabled:
Industrial action to be undertaken by one million National Health Service staff".
Industrial action is not being taken by one million National Health Service staff. In his own district of Haringey—I believe that is his district health authority—today three people only are on strike
My heroes are not the men and women who have stood on the picket lines, nor the minority who have caused operations to be cancelled and waiting lists to be lengthened. I believe that the real heroes of this dispute are the thousands of men and women throughout the National Health Service who have continued to care for their patients. The medical staff, the vast majority of nurses and the many thousands of staff spread throughout the Health Service—ambulancemen, ancillary workers, administrators, catering workers, clerks—are all staff who have put their patients first. Those I believe are the people who deserve our respect. I believe that I express not only my admiration, but the admiration of the vast majority of the public in this country, for their action in keeping hospitals going—often in almost impossible conditions.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all the staff in all the hospitals in my constituency were balloted on whether to strike? They overwhelmingly voted not to strike, although they are no better pleased with the offer than anybody else.

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend confirms precisely the report that I have just made. This debate coincides with the second day of a three-day strike called by the Health Service unions. The latest report that I received just after midday showed that the Health Service is coping remarkably well in the face of very difficult conditions. There have, however, been incidents that I believe the whole House will deplore. In Leicester, water was put into

the tanks of ambulances on emergency call. That incident is now being investigated by the police. In North Lincolnshire ambulance staff have today gone on strike leaving no emergency cover. That cover is being provided by the police and ambulance officers.
At the heart of the debate is the simple question whether the industrial action that is being taken inside the National Health Service can be justified. No one should deceive themselves that industrial action inside the Health Service can be taken without serious effects. Above all, it affects patients and puts them at risk and danger. That is the truth that those supporting the industrial action today have to face.
When I am challenged by the Opposition on that point, as I have been, let me remind them what one of their Ministers said a year or two ago. In 1979 the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), then the Secretary of State for Social Services, made the position of the then Labour Government absolutely clear. On 1 February 1979 he said:
I deplore their policy of calling any form of industrial action in the NHS.
And then he added:
I believe that we should condemn industrial action that does damage to the Health Service, whether it comes from doctors, nurses or anyone else who works in the Service."—[Official Report, 1 February 1979; Vol. 961, c. 1672–84.]
I believe that that statement is correct, and that the House will wait, as it has been waiting for the past weeks, for the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) who leads for the Opposition on health matters to make the Opposition's position on this matter absolutely clear.

Dr. M. S. Miller: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Does he realise that, important as the issue is, it is merely a symptom of something else in the Health Service at the moment? That is that the Government have to satisfy Health Service workers that they are not embarking on a policy that interferes with the function of the Health Service, and are not embarking on a policy of handing the Health. Service, or parts of it, over to private enterprise. They fear that that is what the Government are aiming at. What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to dispel that fear?

Mr. Fowler: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman precisely what the Government are doing. The Government are spending £14½ billion a year on the National Health Service. That is more than any Government have ever spent, either in actual or real terms in the history of the National Health Service. The hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) shakes his head. That represents a 5 per cent. increase in real terms on spending in the National Health Service.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Fowler: I shall give way in a moment to the hon. Gentleman. I suggest, that we return to the question that I want to put to the House, whether the action is justified that is now being taken. We are, whether we like it or not, in the middle of a three-day strike. In the past few weeks I, the Minister for Health and other Ministers in the Department have seen for ourselves some of the direct effects of industrial action—even before the three-day strike. Ten days ago I visited St. Thomas' hospital, across the river. There, something like 2,000 operations have been cancelled since the beginning of the dispute and


1,800 outpatient appointments have been delayed. Two hundred and fifty beds have been closed as the result of the unions' behaviour. The waiting lists are getting longer. Among those needlessly kept waiting are cancer patients, heart patients and patients waiting for orthopaedic operations. What is the major cause of that suffering? [HON. MEMBERS: "You."] The action of 25 employees of the central sterile supplies department, who have simply withdrawn their labour.
Last Friday, I visited another teaching hospital, the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham.

Mr. Stuart Holland: rose—

Mr. Fowler: I shall give way in a moment.

Mr. Holland: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. The Secretary of State is clearly not giving way.

Mr. Fowler: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, because I recognise that that hospital is in his constituency. Here again, there were empty wards and a major hospital had been forced to work at about one-third below its normal level of activity. On the same day my hon. and learned Friend, the Minister for Health, visited the Leeds general infirmary where ancillary workers withdrew emergency cover for eight days earlier in the dispute. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary visited Addenbrooke's in Cambridge where elderly and incontinent patients are being forced to lie on paper sheets, with great discomfort and distress. That is the reality of industrial action in the NHS. That is what the Opposition are supporting.

Mr. Holland: The Secretary of State did not have the courtesy to let me know that he intended to visit St. Thomas' hospital. This gives me the chance to put the record straight.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to 25 workers. In fact, there are problems about 24 workers in the central sterile supplies department. However, the problem is negotiated with the management on a daily basis. For example, on 8 July after joint negotiation 60 items of health equipment were allowed through.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of closures, but the closure of the children's ward was not challenged by the management, because the ward was due for redecoration. Will the Secretary of State admit that two-thirds of beds at St. Thomas' are being operated? I have with me a letter from the management to the unions involved thanking them for their co-operation on an emergency case where they willingly helped to resolve problems.

Mr. Fowler: The fact is that 25 employees in the central sterile supplies department have withdrawn their labour. Major and minor packs ready for operations have not been provided. Those packs are being provided by volunteers in the hospital who are working in their spare time so that operations can take place. Rather than accuse me, the hon. Gentleman should go to the hospital and see for himself what is happening there.

Mr. Holland: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fowler: No. That is the reality of industrial action inside the NHS. There is no balking that issue. There is

no running away from it. Industrial action inside the Health Service harms patients. It strikes at the heart of the NHS because it strikes at patient care.
What is the position now? The Government have provided for pay increases ranging between, on average, 6 per cent. and 7½ per cent. for all those working in the Health Service. That compares not only with the 5·9 per cent. for the Civil Service, which the hon. Member for Wood Green mentioned, but with the 6 per cent. for teachers and the 6·1 per cent. for the Services. But more than that, it represents a substantial move by the Government in response to the Royal College of Nursing's initial ballot and to other settlements in the public sector.
The response of the health unions to those moves has been simple. They demand a pay increase of 12 per cent. and longer holidays and shorter hours. They have not moved one jot from those demands.
I must make it clear once more to the unions that the Government are not prepared to spend more money on pay. The offer that we have made is a final offer and I do not believe that the unions would find one person in a hundred among the public who would be prepared to support the claim that is being put forward.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fowler: No, I shall not give way. Over the past three years and in spite of the worst recession since the war, the Government have not just maintained health spending, but have increased it. Total spending on the NHS in Britain in 1978–79, under a Labour Government, was £7·7 billion. This year, it is £14½ billion.

Mr. Skinner: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? Mr. Fowler: There has been a 5 per cent.—

Mr. Skinner: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) must have heard the Secretary of State say that he was not giving way. The right hon. Gentleman has the Floor and is entitled to address the House.

Mr. Skinner: But the right hon. Gentleman promised.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that there are promises and promises.

Mr. Fowler: If I made a promise to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) I would not dream of breaking it. If he will contain himself for another 30 seconds, I shall give way to him.
The point that I was making was that there has been a 5 per cent. increase in real terms since May 1979. We have taken on new staff, particularly front-line medical staff such as nurses, and we are spending more on the Health Service in both cash and real terms than have any Government in the history of the NHS.

Mr. Skinner: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will now tell us where much of that additional money has come from. Since the Government came to power, they have increased health charges across the board, increased dental and optical charges and put up prescription charges from 25p to £1·35. In other words, he is telling us that the total amount has gone up and the amount per head might have gone up. But the sick are subsidising the sick. That is where the additional expenditure has come from.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is, typically, wrong in the generality. What he says about increased charges is


true, but 85 per cent. of the revenue for the NHS comes from taxation. If he is seeking a 12, 15 or 20 per cent. increase for NHS workers—

Mr. Skinner: Keep going.

Mr. Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman conceded such increases there would be even bigger increases in taxation. There is no other way of finding the money.

Dr. Summerskill: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fowler: I will not give way again.
The Government have made available extra money, above the 4 per cent. factor, for pay this year. More than 60 per cent. of that extra money has come from the Government. The rest has come from the existing budget of the NHS. In spite of the extra money that we have asked for, growth in the hospital service will still continue. The rate of growth will reduce from 1·7 per cent. to 1·3 per cent.
It should be pointed out to those who argue that we should go further on pay that the only result of that would be wards closing and redundancies—that is, unless it is believed that an extra bill of anything between £500 million and £700 million can be presented to the taxpayer.
The way forward is this. My priority is to see an end to industrial action in the NHS and I believe that that should be priority of all those who work in the service and all who have an influence on it. Certainly it is the wish of the people of this country, patients, those waiting to get into hospital and the families and friends of the sick. I hope that today we shall hear at long last from the Opposition Front Bench a condemnation of the industrial action.
People want hospitals out of the headlines. They want them to go back to their real job of caring for the sick, and union leaders, as much as anyone else, have a responsibility to heed that public demand.

Mr. David Stoddart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fowler: No, I will not give way. I wish to put forward a three-point plan to get the NHS back to work.

Dr. Summerskill: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fowler: No, I will not give way. I have given way several times and the hon. Member for Wood Green hardly gave way at all.
As I said, I put forward a three-point plan to get the NHS back to work. First, on pay for this year, negotiations should resume in the Whitley councils on the basis of our improved pay offers. Those offers are final and are fair and reasonable. They compare well with settlements that have been accepted by millions in both the public and the private sectors. There is £400 million on the table. The money is there. The time has surely come for negotiation on its distribution.
Second, we should make urgent progress on finding a new permanent arrangement for determining nurses' and midwives' pay. This Government first suggested longterm arrangements back in August 1980. That is when we made our first approach. We are anxious to make progress, and I believe that there are very many in the nursing profession who see this, rightly, as a vital and long overdue step forward. I want to see a new system in place

by April 1983. We have had some discussions, but if we are to achieve that target we must make progress urgently, and progress car be made only by talking.
Third—this is important, because it has not always been put inside the NHS—there are other groups inside the Health Service, apart from nurses and midwives, who would like new arrangements for their pay. It is my offer to the Health Service unions that we should get down to talks on such arrangements. I am ready to start those talks immediately, but again it is discussion which will take this forward, not industrial action. I understand the aspirations of those working in the Health Service, but I say with all the sincerity at my command that I do not believe that industrial action that can only affect patients will ever bring those aspirations into effect.
I believe that we should talk on the agenda that I have set out. Each day of industrial action is putting lives at risk and causing worry and anxiety to many thousands, of people. Providing care is a purpose that should surely unite everyone in this House. Once again, I appeal to the union leaders in the name of good sense and of common humanity to bring this pointless and damaging industrial action to an end. So let us waste no more time, no more resources on destructive industrial strife, and for goodness sake let us have constructive talks now on the basis of our improved offers and in accordance with the proposals I hat I have put before the House today.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I received a message at 2 o'clock today from a number of hospitals. Without being asked, emergency services, nurses working in emergency and accident departments, and all the ancillary workers who service those departments have gone back to work to ensure that no casualty from a bomb disaster anywhere in London would have difficulty in receiving the normal high level of health care. The Secretary of State could hardly bring himself to congratulate those people. He has never withdrawn his charges that those same people are ingrates who are holding patients to ransom and who do not care about their patients in any circumstances. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Fowler: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It appears that the hon. Lady is not giving way.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Unlike the right hon. Gentleman,I—

Mr. Fowler: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is only a three-hour debate, and if we are to go on like this we shall have no more than an hour.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I was about to give way, because I believe in courtesy, which he does not.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Lady surely remembers that in my opening remarks I paid tribute to that action. Surely she remembers that those were the opening remarks of my speech.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The right hon. Gentleman then went on to repeat the criticisms that have been made of Health Service workers, without once withdrawing any of the charges that he has made during this industrial action.
I am quite appalled that the Secretary of State should come to the Dispatch Box today—even on this occasion—and continue to assert that industrial action is closing hospitals and preventing people from getting urgent treatment. If the right hon. Gentleman can give the House honest information, will he tell us how many of the wards in St. Thomas' hospital, which he visited, have been closed on previous occasions through lack of the resources that his Government refused to find? I noticed that he was extremely careful to quote only those instances where he thinks political capital could be made out of suggesting that Health Service workers were not interested in caring for their patients. That is completely unworthy, and also wholly untrue. It is similar to the action that he takes on the financing of the Health Service.

Dr. Summerskill: This is a different point from the one that I should have liked to make in an intervention in the Secretary of State's speech. I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the Government's proposed closure of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson hospital unless thousands of pounds can be raised by voluntary contributions. We heard nothing about that from the Government today.

Mrs. Dunwoody: If we were to list the hospitals and hospital wards that were being closed by the Government we should have a never-ending list, and I should then be in considerable trouble with you, Mr. Speaker. That is also true, of course, of finance. The right hon. Gentleman is very good in the sums that he presents to the House, but he never deals with the real problem—the one that has afflicted the Health Service for too long. The problem of low pay in the Health Service is not new, but it has been made ten times worse by the Government's actions.
Successive Labour Ministers in the past have sought to do something about low pay by setting up a number of commissions, starting with the Halsbury commission and progressing to the setting up of sensible machinery in the Clegg commission. Unfortunately, this Government do not wish to reach an equitable pay solution through the machinery of consultation. They are interested only in confrontation.
This Conservative Government came to power absolutely determined to remove any vestige of sensible planning from the National Health Service. They immediately dismantled not only the Clegg commission but any method of comparability with outside pay rates. This dispute is one of the inevitable consequences of that intransigence.
For the first time, all the Health Service unions, working together, have submitted a claim that is sufficient to maintain their living standards—a core claim for 12 per cent. The Secretary of State responded by announcing that the allocations of moneys to the health authorities for 1982–83 included 4 per cent. for increases in earnings. When that was flatly rejected, the Secretary of State tried a new tack. He sought to divide the nursing profession from its confreres, after refusing to refer the dispute to ACAS—a request that was made by all the trade unions working in the Health Service. Although he later tried to confuse the issue by asking Mr. Pat Lowry to intervene on what he called "a personal basis", he refused to let him negotiate, or even to explore realistic grounds for a settlement. So Mr. Lowry's efforts, not surprisingly, were abortive.
The Secretary of State tried very hard to persuade the Royal College of Nursing to accept an offer without consulting the other unions. He even went as far as keeping the TUC health committee waiting while he did a deal which he hoped would undermine the entire joint efforts. The first that the TUC health committee knew of it was at a press conference, when it heard what was going on.
Throughout the dispute the Secretary of State has behaved extremely badly. From the moment that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced his expenditure plans for 1982–83, with a 4 per cent. pay factor for the public services, far from seeking to effect an equitable settlement the Secretary of State has, by his conduct, sought to exacerbate an already delicate situation.
First, the Secretary of State failed signally to obtain his Cabinet colleagues' support for a pay award that would even keep pace with inflation. After two years in which Health Service workers have taken a direct cut in their standard of living, the Secretary of State was so out of touch with opinion in the Health Service that he did not realise how unanimous would be the condemnation and rejection of his pathetic offer.
On 8 March 1982 the Secretary of State was forced to increase his offer, but for certain groups only—most notably, the nurses. The offer that he then made was 6·4 per cent. His reasoning was probably that the general public had made it plain that there was a case to be answered. By seeking to divide the nurses from other Health Service workers, the Government hoped to isolate the ancillary grades and to make greater difficulties for them in their pay claim.
The Minister for Health showed that he was aware of the criticism of Government action when he said on 22 April 1982 that
Since 1979 nurses' pay has been raised well ahead of inflation and their working week has been sharply reduced from 40 hours to 37½ hours.
He could not bring himself to point out that that was no thanks to the Government but that it was forced upon them by an EEC directive. It has been used by them ever since to distort the numbers of workers whom they say are available within the Health Service. We should look at both those statements with some care because the truth is rather different.
Since the Government took office the nurses pay settlements have been constantly below the rate of inflation. In April 1980 the award was 14 per cent. compared with an inflation rate of 21·8 per cent. In April 1981 the award was 6 per cent. compared with an inflation rate of 12 per cent. Over the past three years the nurses have suffered a direct cut in their incomes.
The Minister was not content with simply reversing the figures. He went on to allege that the number of jobs in the National Health Service had increased and he implied that the workers should be grateful that they had employment.
An examination of other groups of public service workers soon exposes the hollowness of that argument. If a reasonable increase in pay means a fall in the number of workers employed, perhaps the Secretary of State and the Minister would like to explain to the House how, in a comparable period, numbers in the Armed Forces have grown by 5 per cent. while their pay has increased by 72 per cent., numbers in the police force have risen by 10·4 per cent. while their pay has increased by 73·9 per cent.
and the fire service has had a 5 per cent. increase in numbers with a 72·2 per cent. increase in pay. Those figures—

The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): rose—

Mrs. Dunwoody: I shall give way in a moment but let the hon. and learned Gentleman listen for once.
Those figures represent the position before the current round of pay settlements. From April 1982 the Armed Forces received a pay award of 6·1 per cent., the police received a pay award of 13·2 per cent. from September 1981 and the fire service has been awarded 10·1 per cent. from November 1981. If one aggregates the current settlements for those three services over the same period that is used to aggregate the figures for the nurses, the Armed Forces have received 82·5 per cent., the police services have received 96·8 per cent. and fire services 89·6 per cent.
By comparison, if the current offer to the nurses of 7·5 per cent. were applied, the comparable figure for nurses would be 71·7 per cent. If they were awarded the full 12 per cent. that figure would rise only to 78·9 per cent.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: rose—

Mrs. Dunwoody: I shall give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman to hear what new history he has thought up now.

Mr. Clarke: Before the hon. Lady wandered off into the mists of figures relating to other services, she quoted a statement of mine as though about to reveal that it was somehow inaccurate. I said that since the Government were in power the pay of nurses had been increased ahead of inflation and that their working week had been reduced from 40 to 37½ hours. The hon. Lady missed out the 20 per cent. Clegg award to nurses that the Government honoured and paid.
As the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) has at long last agreed that the average figures that we have used for ancillary workers are accurate, will the hon. Lady concede that my statement about nurses' pay and hours is also accurate? If not, will she give the grounds upon which she claims that they are wrong?

Mrs. Dunwoody: No, I shall not. I have just given detailed figures that show conclusively that over the past three years pay awards for nurses have been below the rate of inflation. So much for the little games that the Minister plays all the time with figures. The police service is far more important to the Government than the Health Service workers. No amount of complacent shuffling of the statistics will disguise that.
If we are to play these games, perhaps we can carry out one more little exercise before we leave the wonderland of percentages. The current offer of basic pay plus 6 per cent., minus taxes, would be worth £1·48 to a grade one National Health Service ancillary worker, £1·62 to a grade four NHS ancillary worker and £2·13 to those ambulance men who do a dirty and dangerous job on the streets.
However, when we come to the nurses the figures are even more revealing. If one takes account of lodging and meals charges and taxes the current increase for resident nurses is worth 34p to a student nurse, minus 69p to a ward sister—I hope that that will not go to their heads—one

penny to a staff nurse, minus 30p to a State enrolled nurse and minus 63p to a nursing auxiliary. The Government's generosity knows no bounds.
The Secretary of State has used another argument to deter the NHS staff from seeking proper pay increases.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Lady has been most courteous in giving way. I concede the details of the figures on the basis that she gives them. However, as every figure that she uses has to be hedged about with evey kind of qualification, can she tell me what is wrong with using average earnings figures as the Government do? They are plainly identifiable and used in every other walk of life.

Mr. Race: They are not.

Mr. Clarke: Will the hon. Lady explain why it is not acceptable to use average earnings figures and why instead one has to have those convoluted and ridiculous mathematical mazes to go through?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am happy to ignore such convoluted things as meal and lodging charges if the Secretary of State will undertake today not to charge the nurses for those amounts that he intends to demand before the end of the year. That is an important point. 'The Government are not prepared to compare nurses' wage rates with outside wage rates when they are seeking a pay settlement but they insist on comparing meal and nursing charges with outside costs when they want to charge the nursing profession. They only want to use whatever basis suits them.
The Secretary of State has used another argument. to deter the staff from seeking a proper pay increase. He has emphasised all along that increases in pay would be at the expense of patients and patient care. It is true that in a speech on 27 March 1982, the Minister said that:
Any money for larger settlements could only come from increased taxation or from reductions in patient care
—but he then said—
which are both quite unacceptable
However, that pretence was rapidly abandoned. From the beginning, the pay offer has been calculated on the 'Oasis of a direct cut in the resource allocation to the regional health authorities.
The original pay increase of 6·4 per cent. was to cost £81·9 million, of which two-thirds was to come from the Government and one-third from the regional health authorities. However, the Government had already assumed a wholly notional "efficiency saving" of £17 million in their original calculations. They gave no evidence for that figure, but simply plucked it from the air. In addition, the effect of the subsequent offer, made on 22 June, of 7·5 per cent. for nurses and 6 per cent. for other Health Service workers will be virtually to wipe out all new growth moneys for the regional health authorities and many of the areas most in need will be directly affected so badly that they will be unable to meet their existing commitments in the coming financial year.
The Secretary of State may shake his head, but we are working from the figures that he gave in a written answer to me and he will have time to juggle with the figures between now and the conclusion of the debate. The real figures are that the extra cost would amount to £172 million, of which £113 million, or 66 per cent., would come from the Treasury and £59 million, or 34 per cent., from the regional health authorities. At a time when democraphic changes alone cost the Health Service 1 per


cent. more each year, the Secretary of State has set out to deprive some of the most needy regions of even basic resources, and intends to wreck the resource allocation working party machinery by making nonsense of any suggestion that resources should be channelled where they are most needed.
The figures speak for themselves. Since the beginning of the dispute the Government have sought to push the Health Service workers not in the direction of the conference table, but out of the door on to the picket line. The Secretary of State has not only used provocative language, but has encouraged others to regard Health Service workers as selfish, "hard-Left" unionists and greedy ingrates taking vicious strike action against patients. Instead of recognising the workers' genuine grievance he has used the dispute as a palpable excuse to cut the resources available to the NHS. He has announced that he intends to freeze existing vacancies and has already made it clear that he will reverse the trend of real growth.
Even the pretence of growth has been abandoned. From now on there will be direct cuts in the NHS budget, irrespective of what happens to this pay round. However, one politician has played a large part in the dispute, but is never seen at the negotiating table at which no one ever negotiates. I refer to the Prime Minister. Since the beginning of this shoddy tale she has called the tune with her insensitive monetarist madness, and the Secretary of State—like some malicious and manipulated marionette—has danced excitedly on the end of her string. He has never once defended the Health Service from the depredations of the vultures in the Cabinet. He has never once fought for a fair deal for those who devote their lives to caring for the sick and the mentally ill. He has sought only to divide one health worker from another, slyly seeking to play off one group of workers against another and to cover up the true cost of his iniquity. He has insulted those with whom he sought apparent agreement and misrepresented those whom he purports to represent. Where there should be consultation there has been confrontation. Where there was need of unity he has deliberately fomented friction. He is a disgrace to his great office and he should resign.

Mr. Tom Benyon: I am glad to contribute to the debate. Indeed, this is the second time that I have made a speech on the subject of the nurses. The first time that I did so was some three months ago in Trafalgar Square. I took part in a debate and made a speech that was largely supportive of the nurses' cause. However, my illusion of demure sweet nurses was somewhat pricked by those who abused me and other parliamentary colleagues that afternoon. The hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) was with me on that occasion.
I was slightly daunted to see a very large lady in the front row with a large placard saying "Get your enema here" with which she subsequently tried to sweep me from the platform. Let us hope that this time I shall have better fortune at the hands of those who listen to my speech. However, I was amused by the general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, who, at the end of my speech—which was totally drowned in catcalls and boos—wrote me a letter thanking me very much for my contribution which had made the afternoon such a great success.
However, having received several delegations in the House and in my constituency I have come to the conclusion that we speak a different language from many of those who seek more money from the public purse. I do not know whether those who seek more money understand that each week we are lobbied by more people who want more money from the same public purse. During the past few months university teachers, firemen and nurses have sought more money and there is a steady train of people demanding more and more money. I wonder whether they understand where the money would come from if we were to be forthcoming in every case. However, all hon. Members are sympathetic to the cause of the nurses and of those who work in the health sector. [Interruption.] There has already been plenty of political flatulence from the Opposition Front Bench today. However, from my experience I would say that hon. Members on both sides of the House are sympathetic to the cause.
The aims of democracy are not served by those who try to misrepresent the Government's position. I am perfectly prepared to criticise the Government. I have often done so and probably will do so in future. I am not afraid of doing so, but I will not sit mute listening to unfair and unjustified criticism and to distortions of the facts that are presented to the public for their consumption. Such criticisms are a disgrace and no one should be allowed to get away with them. All hon. Members recognise that those who work in the health sector are immensely valuable. Indeed, the value that the Government attach to them is represented by the additional 2 per cent. to 3·5 per cent. offered to them. Indeed, they have been offered more than our soldiers who fought in the Falklands.
The hon. Member for Crewe may shake her head but those soldiers fought bravely with no hint of a three-day week or stoppages and the public would regard it as a disgrace and a scandal if we were to pay more people more money in the public sector than the Armed Forces have accepted.

Mr. Terry Davis: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point, but he should not exaggerate his case. He said that the public would not understand it if the Government paid those in the Health Service more money than those who serve in the Armed Forces, but those who work in the Health Service will still be paid less—even if they receive an increase of 12 per cent.—than those in the Armed Services.

Mr. Benyon: I am fully aware of that. Indeed, the Conservative Party fought the last election on the firm promise that we would give internal and external security the highest priority. We fought the election on that platform and we rightly honoured the promise.
However, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) who, with his characteristic charm, discretion and understatement, made the opening speech in the debate. He would make a splendid tribune for the class war and he covered every political cliche from putting babies before bombs to calling the Government callous and brutal and a party of conspiracy. Indeed, I believe that the hon. Member for Crewe called the Government's attitude malicious.
One important fact should not be forgotten. This is not a new problem. The people in the health sector have never been paid well. Dimly searching in the mists of my mind,


I remember that the hon. Member for Crewe was a member of the Labour Government when the health workers were paid deplorably. When we came to power in 1979 we honoured, as we said we would, the Clegg report. It is no good the hon. Lady saying that we had to do that, because we did it. It is right for us to take credit for that and to explain to the health workers what we have paid them to date. We must say that clearly.
Therefore, low pay is not a new problem. Successive Governments have faced it. It is the problem of the lower paid. No one can say that our Government are directly responsible for it.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman is right that the Government paid the Clegg award. What is dishonest about the Government's claim is that they think that the world started in May 1979. They refuse to count from 1978 when they talk about that pay increase. That is gross deception of the public. That point has riled my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Minister for Health is responsible for that deception and he will not admit it at the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Benyon: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I would not say that we thought that the world started when we came to power. We can take credit for a sense of realism. We stated unequivocally and it was the main thrust of our election campaign that we could not go on paying more and more money without showing people precisely where it came from, and without increasing taxation and borrowing further because taxation was too high and borrowing limits were squeezed too far already.
The Opposition have been grossly politically irresponsible. They have been trailing lost causes around the Chamber and telling the general public the story that everything is negotiable. It does not matter what the issue is—be it the Falklands, ASLEF or COHSE—providing that we can talk about it and negotiate it, doubtless we shall come to a fudged compromise. The Government have rightly fixed cash limits, which is the best way of reducing inflation. They are right to stick to those cash limits.
I charge the Opposition with peddling dreams to the electorate because the problems are always with us. They are peddling dreams by saying that we can continue to pay more to the public sector without paying any attention to where it comes from.

Mr. Stoddart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Benyon: I have given way twice. I am anxious to make a brief speech, because I know that many hon. Members wish to speak.
We cannot continue to pay more in the public sector by printing more money. The Labour Party has been putting its party interests before the national interest. It has attempted to enhance its flagging political fortunes by making grossly irresponsible speeches and saying that it could do things that it knows it could not do if the country were unfortunate enough to have that party in office.
I shall draw up a balance sheet with regard to the health workers. It depends on which side one puts all the different items as to whether one is an optimist or a pessimist. I shall start with the pessimistic list. We recognise that health workers are subject to low pay. Many of them do dirty jobs and many feel that they have been ignored by Government for too long. On the optimistic side, it is important that

those people are in work when more than 3 million are unemployed. Further, 47,300 more are working now than in May 1979. The job is expanding because we are spending 2 per cent. more each year on the National Health Service just to stand still. They enjoy pension rights that are fair and reasonably generous for the work that they do. Many of them achieve considerable job satisfaction. I received a letter fron one of my constituents, Miss Karen Christie of 4 Park Crescent, Abingdon, who said:
However—it is a really worthwhile job and I really enjoy it, but it is wrong that the elderly and handicapped are suffering delays as they have been a particularly brave generation—several having fought in two world wars.
Many people are suffering terribly because of this irresponsible and damaging strike. It is wrong of the Opposition to give succour to the people who are on strike.
New initiatives for pay for the health workers are under way and on offer. Many of the figures that are quoted are specious. For every low figure that can be quoted—some figures are distressingly low—there are others that are substantial and reasonably fair. We must remember that many health workers are unskilled. There must be differentials between the skilled and unskilled. The real problem is that we are a low productivity economy. Until that problem is solved no more money will be available for increases in the public sector. Unless there is an expanding private productive sector and the wealth-creating sector of the economy no further money will be available for additional pay. That message should come through.
In a recession refuse to sit in the House hearing the myth that we are in the midst of a conspiracy by the Conservative Party to dismantle the National Health Service. That is rubbish. One of the successes in the Government's period of office and one of our considerable achievements has been in that area. We have instituted a hospital building programme for the first time for many years. Under the Labour Government between 1974 and 1979 the capital programmes fell by one third. We are spending £1 billion this year. The waiting lists have fallen by 130,000. People can make constructive criticism, but they should not fabricate it, which is irresponsible.
The strike is intensely damaging. I hope that the workers understand that the offers on the table should be looked at again. They should come back to work immediately and negotiate. They should not try to negotiate from a posture of strike.
One of the most constructive ways forward is for the Government to look at synchro-pay. There should be a new deal for the health workers. They deserve it. They also deserve recognition. We must work out a new system of paying people in the public health sector so that we do not have continuing arguments year after year. We should have cash limits and explain round the table what the situation is. We should have public debate so that people know what is fair and unfair. That is a more satisfactory way of achieving a calmer reign on pay in the public sector.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I confirm the experience of the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) in Trafalgar Square because I was sitting next to him. He need not be too worried. I assure him that the audience that he was addressing know all about the National Health Service and the Government's record.


Because he was a Tory Member of Parliament he had to stand up to the knowledge and experience of people of what has happened under this Government. He had to carry the can and record of his right hon. and hon. Friends.
I invite the hon. Gentleman to read the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race), which was well researched. As someone who knows a little about the National Health Service, I assure the hon. Gentleman that his comments did less than justice to my hon. Friend's first-class contribution to this important debate.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, the Government are trigger-happy. I accuse the Secretary of State and the Minister for Health of desiring confrontation and of playing political games with a great and internationally famous system of health, medication and care. They are far more concerned to make political points and to achieve strategic and tactical advantages than to negotiate genuinely about a justified claim by the lowest-paid workers in the public sector.
The nurses and professions supplementary to medicine—physiotherapists and radiographers, for example—are among the most devoted workers in the public sector. They have spent a lifetime giving service. I accuse the Government of being directly responsible for three days of industrial action and picket lines rather than resolving a justified campaign. After a long time of trying, the nurses and Health Service workers can see that the Government will not respond to justice and fair arguments unless this type of activity takes place.
I accuse the media and the Secretary of State of maximising the problems and minimising the way in which, even though industrial action is taking place, emergencies are dealt with apart, that is, from today's case. When I was on the picket line at the Central Middlesex hospital yesterday, I witnessed an emergency. The nurses on the picket lines were the first to get the person into the hospital for help. The difficulties are always being maximised. The news publicised is always the bad news. There is no word about the hundreds of thousands of people who make their protest in as civilised a way as is possible. They are leaning over backwards to do as little harm as possible to the patients in their care.
I accuse the Minister of Health of unforgivable blackmail in a speech that he made a few weeks ago. When referring to the need for an increased offer, he said that if the nurses and ancillary workers persisted in their claim they should realise that the claim represented the loss of so many kidney machines, so much of one type of equipment and so much of another type and a reduction in hospital building. In other words, he shifted to the nurses the responsibility for providing resources that rests firmly with the Government. He suggested that they should find the money to buy kidney machines by taking a reduction in their standard of living. It was a deplorable speech. I know the hon. and learned Gentleman quite well. It is not within his competence to tell the country such things and to try to shift his own responsibility to the backs of the health workers. That responsibility lies fairly and squarely on his shoulders.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green made a point that cannot be repeated too often. He pointed out that a percentage of nothing is nothing. Three per cent. on tens of thousands of pounds is quite different from the same

percentage increase on an ancillary worker's probable earnings of £50 a week. In that case, one is talking about practically nothing.
It is all very well for the Secretary of State to ask why, when we compare wages, we include board and lodging and stoppages, and why we do not simply deal with overall pay. The reason is simple. Board and lodging and stoppages are part and parcel of what nurses must pay. If stoppages for nurses' residences increase at the same rate as inflation and they are given a pay rise that is only half the rate of inflation, they will inevitably take a cut in the standard of living to which they are entitled.
I declare a personal interest. My daughter is a nurse. I have watched the way in which she has had to struggle compared with her friends who received the same education and had fewer qualifications. Only once since 1950 have nurses been given a square deal. That was the Halsbury award which was implemented by Barbara Castle in 1975. That was the only time when nurses got a foot on the ladder and had fair comparability. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that, even with the 7·5 per cent. award, nurses will be 18 per cent. less well off in real terms than they were in 1975.
The notion that the Government are benevolent and that they are giving nurses justice is perhaps the biggest misstatement of the year. Because nurses are vulnerable, conscientious and try to do a job of work for the community, they are held to ransom by the Government in their pursuit of their policies.
Mention of the changing number of nurses has not revealed that there are 7,411 nurses on the dole queue. Yet we are trying to increase the level of service. When I have asked about the number of nurses, I have been given no breakdown of the numbers, into those who are auxiliary, enrolled and State registered. No mention is made of the discrepancy on numbers between some areas. Government policy has caused bottlenecks of trained and qualified theatre sisters and other specialties such as renal dialysis.
The Government seem to be obsessed with surgery and operations. The Secretary of State never makes a speech without mentioning surgery and operations. Anyone who knows anything about the Health Service knows that those duties are just the top of a range of health care where other responsibilities are more numerous. But we are always given the drama of a patient being wheeled into an operating theatre. The absence of qualified people in areas where there are bottlenecks is a sign of the failure of the Government's policies.
I shall take the example of renal dialysis. The limited number of nurses who are expert in renal dialysis means that some of them must work a 60 or 70-hour week. The Minister may tell me that they then receive overtime payment. They do not. The hospital is subject to a cash limit. Therefore, the allocation for nurses' pay may not be exceeded. If a nurse works a 60, 70 or 80-hour week, he or she will receive no more pay but will have time off in lieu at some stage. The Government's cash limits hold the ring.
The North-West Thames regional health authority is the largest in the country. The Secretary of State boasts about resources. At the moment, the growth rate for 1982 in that authority is 0·03 per cent. for the year. That calculation was made before the £59 million that may be taken, if the nurses or any other NHS workers settle for the present offer. That means that I shall be faced with all types of


closure and cutback in my district and all finance Officers of district health authorities will be faced with an impossible job.
I notice that the Secretary of State never compares the figures with the gross national product. He describes only the figure in terms of global funds. The Health Service now absorbs about 5·9 per cent. of the GNP. In spite of the fact that the Secretary of State claims that resources have been increased, if one takes into account the way in which joint funding has been handled for social services departments in local authorities, his figures are more suspect than ever.
The Government's tactics and strategy have been deplorable. Even today, the Secretary of State suggested that if interested parties would come to the conference table, he would trade off a little more here for a little less there—in other words, that he is not prepared to reconsider his strategy. I warn the Government that if they continue to pursue that strategy, not only will we have the unrest of today and tomorrow, they will destroy the morale and the co-operation that exists throughout the Health Service where so many varied workers form a team. Morale will be destroyed not just for this year but for the next 10 years.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I remind the House that the debate will finish at 7.12 pm. At least seven hon. Members hope to catch my eye, in addition to the Front Bench spokesmen. If speeches are brief, far more hon. Members—especially those who have been present throughout the debate—can be called.

6 pm

Mr. John Cartwright: I should say, first, how much I appreciate the initiative of the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) in obtaining this debate. He made an extremely powerful case on behalf of the Health Service workers. He will not be surprised to hear that I did not agree with everything that he said, but it was a powerful case and it was inadequately answered by the Government.
The saddest aspect of the Government's handling of the dispute is the cynicism that it shows. Very few hon. Members would disagree that if the Health Service workers had the industrial muscle of the miners, the water workers or the gas workers they would have been offered a more generous settlement. The Government's attitude to pay policy is developing clearly. Most will go to those who fight most toughly and threaten the greatest damage. The Government should not be surprised if the Health Service unions learn that lesson. It is doubly hard on the Health Service workers to receive a low pay offer on the basis of an existing pay level that everyone recognises is extremely low.
There have been arguments about average pay, and many hon. Members will have seen pay slips during the dispute. I have seen many, but I quote just one that is typical. A porter at the Brook general hospital in Woolwich who works 40 hours per week on a rotary shift basis receives the princely sum of £64·20 in basic pay. London weighting adds £11·28 and his rotary shift allowance adds a further £6·40. His total gross pay is therefore £81·88. Deductions for income tax, superannuation, national insurance and so on remove £21·61, leaving

him with the magnificent sum of £60·27 for a 40-hour week on which to keep a family in the circumstances of 1982.
It is easy to understand the anger of people who receive such a poor reward for the vital work that they do. An increase of 6 per cent. on the gross pay to which I referred would add less than £5 per week gross. By the time that normal deductions have eaten it away, it would be about half that figure. That is before one considers the problems of rent and rate rises, fuel costs and all the other inflationary circumstances of 1982.
It is a tragedy that Health Service workers have been forced to take industrial action. I recognise that in most cases the unions are seeking to minimise the impact on patients, but they recognise that any industrial action must harm the quality of the service to patients. At Greenwich district hospital, for example, white collar workers in NALGO took action last week. As a result, ambulances bringing elderly patients to a geriatric clinic were turned away, appointments were disrupted and waiting lists were extended. That shows not the mindless militancy of the people involved, but their sense of grievance, frustration and bitterness at the treatment that they have received.
A NALGO official was quoted in my local newspaper as saying:
It is unfortunate that patients will be hit. But there is no other way to put our pay claim across.
It is an appalling indictment of the way in which industrial relations are conducted in this country that people feel that they have to take that kind of action.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear whether the Social Democratic Party condemns industrial action in the Health Service? The Labour Government condemned it unreservedly. Has even the moderate breakaway now changed its mind?

Mr. Cartwright: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will be patient, I am about to deal with that point.
I understand the bitterness and frustration that lead people to take industrial action of this kind. Nevertheless, comments such as those that I have quoted from a NALGO official, understandable though they may be, simply play into the Government's hands. I much prefer the comment of Mr. Ian Maccaul, a COHSE branch secretary in my constituency, who was reported in the local newspaper as saying:
We will take no part in any action that will hit the patients. Although we support the fight for more pay, patients must come first.
I very much endorse that approach. It is typical of the majority of Health Service workers and it will enable them to retain the public support that they have so rightly built up. I believe that that public support is their most powerful asset and should not be put at risk. Despite all the anger and frustration that the workers feel, I believe that the public support that they have achieved is far more likely than industrial action to obtain results because I believe that the overwhelming majority of people in this country recognise that the cause of the Health Service workers is a just cause.

Mrs. Jill Knight: I begin by paying sincere tribute to the many people in the Health Service who are working normally. A large majority of the


nurses and some other workers have not been coerced or frightened into joining the strike. They deserve our tribute today.
Only last week someone in my constituency who has worked in the Health Service for about 22 years said to me "I never thought that I would be ashamed of my profession, but I am today". She felt that there was no possible excuse for what the militants in the Health Service are doing. It has been made clear time and again that the Government have done their utmost to make every last penny available. Many Health Service workers, including nurses, physiotherapists and others, have been offered 7·5 per cent., ambulancemen have been offered 6·5 per cent., and other ancillary workers have been offered 6 per cent. Those are not bad figures at a time when other workers are accepting 4 per cent.
It is important to note what others are saying about this. The Guardian, which is not universally known for its support of the Government, said on 23 June:
The unyielding demand of the unions for a 12 per cent. pay increase (or 20 per cent. if the demands on holidays and hours are included) suggests that they are not seriously seeking a settlement. They must know that no responsible Government could possibly meet this claim. Their determination to widen the conflict is reflected by a COHSE spokesman threatening to call a general strike in order to succeed in its aims".
It is important also to notice the kind of people who are pushing the strike. The intervention of the miners' union and others clearly shows that some militants are seizing on the situation with great joy as a stick with which to beat the Government. As The Guardian said, there is no case whatever for a 12 per cent. pay increase. It is well above the inflation rate, well above what others are accepting and far more than the country can afford.
I was surprised when the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) claimed that the Government were not prepared to pay up. It would not be a bad idea if some Opposition Members recognised that every penny spent by the Government in this way is not the Government's money but the people's money. There is no magic tap at the Treasury that can be turned on and guaranteed to produce all the money that is required. If the Government agreed to the 12 per cent. demand, the worst of our economic troubles would begin all over again. Others would want 12 per cent., 15 per cent. or 20 per cent., as the hon. Member for Wood Green himself made clear.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Knight: No, I am sorry, but I cannot give way. I wish to show courtesy to you, Mr. Speaker, and to meet your request for short speeches.
The trouble is that whenever a 12, 14 or 15 per cent. claim is settled everyone else immediately wants the same figure. It starts the spiral again and in that case there would be no hope of beating inflation.
I remind the Opposition of what a Labour Prime Minister said in 1978–79. At that time the Labour Government were attempting to hold pay awards in the NHS to 5 per cent. because they knew that a pay explosion would aggravate inflation and increase unemployment. It is a pity that the Opposition have forgotten what that Prime Minister said.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Knight: I shall finish what I am saying. The hon. Lady had a jolly good bash and I intend to have a bit of a bash, too.
The hon. Lady served under that Socialist Prime Minister. He said
To those who want to improve the Health Service, as I do, and those who want to improve education, as I do, I say that the first test is to keep inflation down. Inflation cuts away at jobs. It reduces the attraction of our goods to other countries and lessens the opportunities for export."—[Official Report, 1 November 1978; Vol. 957, c. 50.]
If that was right then—Conservative hon. Members recognised how right and fair it was—and considered to be words of wisdom when a Labour Government were in power, why does it become wrong as soon as the Conservatives take office?
Have the Opposition calculated the cost of a 12 per cent. increase? A claim of 12 per cent. would cost £850 million. Honestly, where do hon. Gentlemen think the money will come from? That is not the full amount. If the longer holidays and other demands in the package are met the cost would be £1,000 million.
It must be recognised that that money is not available. I suppose it is true that there are none so blind as those who will not see. The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) referred to a statement made by a COHSE official. It was a good statement and I imagine that in that area the strike was not harming the patients. However, In many places the strike is causing endless grief and worry to innocent, sick people. How can that be right?
Two days ago a newspaper reported that doctors were unable to help a pregnant woman who was in agony and well past her time because surgical induction demanded medical supplies that the strikers were holding up. How can the Opposition support that? How can the Opposition support the reports of pickets interrogating people? Newspaper reports mention one woman with severe abdominal pains. How can it be right that that woman should have to describe her medical condition and how she feels to trade union pickets who have no medical knowledge?
It is reported that normally St. Thomas' hospital deals with 120 emergency operations each day. That is now down to 30. Surely if an emergency operation means anything it is an operation that is desperately needed by the person who is undergoing it. Can the Opposition understand what is happening in the minds of those people whose operations are postponed?
Only this morning I received a heartrending letter from a constituent who tells me that she found a lump in her breast and because she was unable to make a normal appointment under the National Health Service she arranged a private consultation. The surgeon was reassuring, but told her that she needed an operation quickly. An appointment was made for the operation to be carried out last Sunday. Four days before it was due she was told the operation was cancelled. She was given another appointment and that was cancelled. The next appointment was also cancelled. Can anyone imagine what is going through the mind of my constituent? She is worried to death about whether she has cancer.
It is no use some Opposition Members saying that it is the Government's fault. It is the fault of the people who are denying that woman treatment. There is no doubt about that. Such people cannot be allowed to win. Bullies are always thoroughly nasty, but the bully who attacks the sick, the old and the helpless is, in my book, unspeakable.
What would have happened to Florence Nightingale's image if she had put down the lamp and left dying patients in order to get more money? It is deplorable that such things are happening today.
The Minister has made it clear and the Government's case is cast-iron. They have offered all they can, yet these actions continue. Who is in the right?

Mr. Stan Thorne: There is much in what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) said that needs a reply, but I have my own points to make and I shall not follow her argument.
The Minister referred to what was done in the Health Service by the Labour Government. Some of his criticisms must be accepted. A number of us objected at the time to the Front Bench decisions that were taken on Health Service workers' pay. We cannot escape the fact that we, too, have some responsibility for the existing situation. However, that in no way excuses the Government.
Several of my hon. Friends and I took the opportunity this morning to meet a delegation from London's Royal Free hospital. That delegation was widely representative of laboratory technicians, biologists, porters, cleaners, domestics, clerks, members of NUPE, COHSE, NALGO and ASTMS. They put a very clear exposition of their problems. We examined pay slips, which covered several months. One of the men, married with children, takes home about £58 a week. That man is capable of controlling the water and power supplied to a hospital. He could act in the irresponsible way that the Minister suggests workers are doing, but he is unwilling to do so because he recognises—obviously, far more than Government spokesmen recognise—the need to look after the patients in spite of, not because of, the Government's activities.
References have been made to NHS expenditure. In spite of what the Minister says, it is clear that there will be a 2 per cent. cut in real terms in the next two years. What effect will that have on Health Service provisions? If the present pay offers are implemented, the health authorities will need to find £67 million, possibly by cutting jobs by about 12,000. They will certainly need to reduce their ability to provide adequate patient care. How many people have needlessly died in recent years owing to the absence of kidney machines and other important life support measures?
The Government appear to have no real understanding of what can be done. It is all a question of priorities. A few days ago we debated defence expenditure. It is clear that the Government prefer to find money for death and to cut the Health Service. Yet again they have illustrated that they are an anti-life Government, and the sooner they go the better for all concerned.

Mrs. Sheila Faith: I listened with some sympathy to the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race), although I did not agree with everything that he said. I also listened with sympathy to some of my constituents, who are members of COHSE, who came down from Derbyshire yesterday to see me. Some of them recounted stories of great hardship. I sympathise with them, although I recognise that the average wage of ancillary workers is more than £100 a week.
The ancillary workers must recognise that the NHS is spending more than £12 billion a year, the majority of

which goes on wages. It is therefore difficult to give the Health Service workers all the financial help that they require, because it would cost an extra £1 billion, which would affect our economy and the future development of the NHS both capital projects and possible staff increases.
I believe that in their heart of hearts the majority of the COHSE representatives whom I met knew that they were being used by militant Left-wing elements in a campaign against cash limits and picketing laws. Indeed, Mr. Arthur Scargill, the president of the NUM, has said:
The best way to oppose the Tebbit Bill is to support the nurses and health workers".
When I pointed out that NHS expenditure had increased from £6… billion in 1979 to more than £12 billion today, they knew that that was true, just as they did when I pointed out that nurses' pay had more than kept pace with inflation. I also pointed out that nurses' hours had been reduced, that waiting lists had been shortened and that many more people—doctors, nurses and ancillary workers—now worked in the NHS.
Those constituents did not say that they would vote for me at the next general election, nor did they say that they would vote Labour. They said that they would not vote at all. They have good memories and are aware that as recently as 1979 they were in confrontation with a Labour Government. They recall that the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), said:
To those who want to improve the Health Service, as I do, and those who want to improve education, as I do, I say that the first test is to keep inflation down. Inflation cuts away at jobs. It reduces the attraction of our goods to other countries and lessens the opportunities for exports."—[Official Report, 1 November 1978; Vol. 957, c. 50.]

Mr. Lofthouse: Is the hon. Lady aware that when the Labour Government were attempting to keep inflation down the Conservative Party supported a 22 per cent. wage incease for the Ford motor workers, which was outside the 5 per cent. norm?

Mrs. Faith: I do not think that is particularly relevant to the present situation.
I pointed out to the Health Service workers who saw me yesterday that if they were given extra money it would come from the taxes paid by private industry thereby causing more bankruptcies and unemployment. They understood the point that I was making.
They were also aware that in 1979 the former Secretary of State for Social Services said:
I believe that we should condemn industrial action that does damage to the Health Service, whether it comes from doctors, nurses or anyone else".—[Official Report, 1 February 1979; Vol. 961, c. 1684.]
The Secretary of State talked about real danger to life as a result of this dispute, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight). Only this morning, I received a letter from a dentist who works in a psychiatric hospital in Kent. He said that since early May the operating theatre had been closed due to the COHSE dispute, and I understand that yesterday the trade union district committee refused to reopen that theatre. Those are the only facilities available to him and there are now 49 patients on his waiting list. The allocation of three beds each week means that the waiting time has become 16 weeks rather than the normal one to four weeks.
Several patients have been prescribed antibiotics for their abscesses, and many are taking analgesics. As a


dentist, I know of the acute pain and discomfort that can be caused by dental distress and I also know of the real danger to health that can be caused by an infection in the mouth. I am referring here to mentally handicapped patients. I implore NHS workers and the NHS unions to accept the Secretary of State's recommendation and to remember that a new review body may be proposed for them if they agree to speak to the Minister. I therefore hope that they will stop their industrial action.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: It is an understatement to say that I have been disappointed with many of the speeches by Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Belper (Mrs. Faith) showed more sympathy for the Health Service workers than the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight). I hope that the hon. Member for Edgbaston has now put away her economic primary text book, because, although Conservative Members believe in free market economics, the Health Service workers are not applying them. If they did so, they would indeed put patients' lives at risk. However, because of their loyalty and devotion to patients, they are not prepared to do so. Indeed, the attitude of the Health Service workers has been one of restraint.
The Secretary of State and Conservative Members cannot have it both ways. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has now returned to the Chamber, because his performance today was petty, small-minded, uncaring and unfeeling. It was one of the most miserable performances that there has been from the Government Front Bench. I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would behave more like a Secretary of State who has feeling and responsibility for his office and less like a leader writer for The Times, although his performance today was more suited to a mass circulation tabloid.
The responsibility for what is happening in the Health Service rests with the Government. This dispute could be stopped at any time if there were meaningful negotiations. It is no good the Government saying that there has been no movement on the trade union side. Of course there has. I am vice-president of ASTMS, and I know that the Health Service unions and the TUC are always ready to talk to the Secretary of State if there is something meaningful that they can discuss.

Mr. Tom Benyon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hoyle: No. The hon. Gentleman's contribution was an absolute disgrace. He now has the cheek to try to intervene when he revealed his lack of knowledge of the Health Service. Either that, or he deliberately misrepresented the Health Service workers' case.

Mr. Tom Benyon: rose—

Mr. Hoyle: I have no intention of giving way to the hon. Gentleman. We have heard enough from him.
I want to talk about the facts of the Health Service workers' case, and the fact is that they are among the lowest paid workers in the country. As for paying people for professional qualifications, I should like to say a few words about my members who have professional qualifications. There are medical laboratory scientific officers who earn about £100 a week. If they were working in industry, they would be earning £188 a week. Indeed,

for many of them the average pay is less than £100 a week. A third of them are women. They are doing a very important job in testing blood, urine and other samples, and they are getting £80 a week. A quarter of them are juniors on £52 a week. What kind of reward is that for study and professional qualifications?
For a very long time Health Service workers have been prepared to put the interests of the patients first and to say "We are not prepared to have a dispute. We do not want a dispute. We know that our salaries are inadequate but we hope that, without resorting to any industrial action, our needs will be recognised." Their needs are not being recognised. When the Secretary of State speaks of cost of between £500 million and £700 million to settle the 12 per cent. claim they know that that represents only a quarter of the cost of the operation in the Falklands, but there was no question about the cost of that operation. The contingency reserves were there and the operation was funded. Why cannot the Heath Service workers be funded as well?
The Health Service is important to every man, woman and child in this country. Unless we are very fortunate, we shall all spend some time in hospital. When people come out of hospital, the one thing that they talk about is the dedication of the Health Service workers. The Secretary of State tried to divide them. He tried to get the nurses to call off the strike. He tried in every way possible to get them to accept his offer, but it was impossible, because they realise that unity is strength and that Health Service workers must stand together if they are ever to get a decent deal.
It surprises me that the debate is necessary when the one thing that is apparent is that we spend less of our gross domestic product on the Health Service—just under 6 per cent.—than is spent by most other countries of Western Europe. Most of them spend about 10 per cent. on their health services. We know, too, that other changes are coming in the Health Service.
Only about 6 per cent. of the expenditure on the NHS goes on administration, yet in Australia and various other countries it accounts for 20 per cent., because of the private health insurance schemes in operation there. The Secretary of State will not reveal the contents of the report that he has been sitting on since about January, but it is believed that private health insurance schemes are to be introduced. That is what we gather from leaks in the press, but we have not yet had a statement in the House about the matter.

Dr. M. S. Miller: My hon. Friend is right when he says that we spend less on our National Health Service than other countries spend on theirs, but will he agree that, for the lower proportion of our gross domestic product that we pay, we get a better deal?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must remember that he is not having a private conversation with his hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. Hoyle). He must address the whole House.

Dr. Miller: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. Although we spend less on our Health Service than other countries spend on theirs, our Health Service is a better service than that of many other countries. That shows clearly that the British people are getting their Health Service on the cheap.

Mr. Hoyle: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. It is time that we stopped having it on the cheap, because that is achieved through the low salaries of the Health Service workers, and part of the other saving is due to the rundown in the medical services.
The Secretary of State is always talking about getting out into the country. I should like him to see what is happening in my constituency. One hospital, Winwick, is 117 nurses short. Does he imagine that the way he is treating the Health Service workers will overcome those practical difficulties? Of course it will not. We ought to be spending more on our Health Service, and our expenditure falls well below that in France, West Germany or even the United States of America. This state of affairs cannot be tolerated, and it is not good enough for Ministers to say that the dispute must be called off. They must get back to the negotiating table.
The Health Service administrators have said that the Government's policy is not defensible, and I think they speak for most people in Britain when they say that. It has been clearly shown that the public have an understanding of what is occurring in the Health Service and are backing the Health Service workers.
I remind the Secretary of State that 5,000 members of the Medical Practitioners Union sent him a telegram on 12 July pledging their support to the Health Service workers and pointing out that any risk to patient care would rest with the Secretary of State and his unsympathetic policy. It is clear that it must rest upon him.
After the Secretary of State's display today, I must join the other voices raised on the Opposition Benches and say to him "For God's sake go, and make way for somebody who might be more sympathetic to the needs of the Health Service."

Mr. Fowler: You silly man.

Mr. Hoyle: You are the silly man.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that does not apply—well, it might apply but he is not allowed to say it.

Mr. Clement Freud: I rise, after that brief private conversation, to say that I recognise the intrinsic decency of the Health Service workers. I join the Minister and the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) in paying tribute to the instant cessation of industrial activity as a result of today's bomb attacks.
I think that it must be recognised that, whoever is the hero of the strike, it is not the Government. The Secretary of State said at one point in his speech "I appeal to the Health Service unions." That is where he is so wrong; he does not appeal to the Health Service unions. The sooner he recognises that, the easier it will be to come to a satisfactory conclusion of the dispute.
The longer the strike continues and the worse the situation becomes, the clearer it is that Health Service workers are as invaluable as nurses, and the Government policy—if it is a policy—of dividing in order to rule does little credit to the Front Bench. The dispute began with the nurses and we watched in some dismay as the Minister appealed to the Royal College of Nursing and tried to divide that profession. He went on to suggest variable rates of pay, failing to recognise that ancillary workers feel that

they are just as important as nurses. It has been a ham-fisted way of dealing with an industrial dispute—and it is an industrial dispute which the people of this country support.
There was widespread and general condemnation of the rail strike, but I believe that the average man in the street has very considerable sympathy with the nurses and ancillary workers who are on strike. I understand that the Government's coffers are not bottomless, but if the workers cannot have the money, let us at least have straight, plain dealing and honesty.
After the Minister of State announced that a 12 per cent. pay rise would cost £1,000 million, we heard the Secretary of State say today that it would cost between £500 million and £700 million to meet the claim. In conciliatory mood, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) made the figure £850 million. One would have thought that three people sitting in such close proximity could have got together and agreed upon a figure, however wrong, that would have given the nurses and the country some idea of the cost of the claim.
The Secretary of State will not be surprised when I say that I and my hon. and hon. Friends have always supported a pay policy. We now have a pay policy for the police that works well, but unless we have a genuine pay policy for the country we shall have the same misery year after year.

Mr. Fowler: For my own information, what precisely was this pay policy?

Mr. Freud: I am delighted to be given this opportunity to explain and I am sorry that I have so little time in which to do it. A pay policy is the determination by the party in power to have a system of linked pay awards whereby the different sectors know what they will be receiving. Does that surprise the Secretary of State?

Mr. Fowler: II has given the policy a little more flesh.

Mr. Freud: That is the big difference between the Secretary of State and me. Briefly, and simply, I ask that the intrinsic decency of the Health Service workers be recognised. The general condemnation that most strikes receive does not apply to this one. My hon. Friends—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] I already represent over 8 per cent. of my party. Nothing like 8 per cent. of either the Government or the Opposition are present. We are well represented in this debate.
If the Secretary of State will not pay the nurses and the ancillary workers what they need, the least that he can do is level with them so that they might have some faith in his dealings.

Mr. Stuart Holland: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to tell the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) that it is hoped that the Front Bench replies will begin at 6.45 pm. I know what difficulty that must place on him.

Mr. Holland: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for recognising my special problem. None the less, I should like to devote some time to the dispute at St. Thomas' hospital to which the Secretary of State referred and which was the subject of a disgraceful article in the Sunday Express last Sunday. That paper claimed that 25 strikers are sabotaging one of Britain's top hospitals. The dispute at the hospital does not simply concern 25 workers. It is


supported by all the major unions in the hospital including ASTMS, AUEW, COHSE, NUPE, NALGO, TGWU, UCATT, EETPU and others. In the central sterile supplies department the staff have been on strike for over three weeks but a permanent staff of two people is maintained dealing with 20 sterile packs per day. A regular meeting takes place between the unions and the health authority chairman before any industrial action because the unions wish to resolve any industrial problems in advance. There is a regular daily meeting with management on both drug supply and emergency cases. Post has been let into the hospital and management is able to open it. In the case of the children's wards, the management did not oppose the closure because the wards were scheduled for redecoration.
I have two brief and key points, which are relevant to the dispute. The Minister is basically passing the buck. He is saying, in terms of the relevant circulars to which he referred the district health authorities, that they have to decide how to handle the industrial action. On the other hand, he is saying quite simply that the money is not available.
What I would like him to say to the House is whether he has or has not sent what amount to sealed instructions on the dispute to the chairpersons of health authorities which are marked "confidential" and are not for discussion by the health authorities themselves.
Secondly, what circulars concerning the hiving-off of catering, cleaning, laundry and medical preparation are now in the pipeline, having been prepared by Government Departments, and to be released after this dispute as if the dispute itself had caused them?
The Government, with their policy of manic monetarism and almost lunatic laissez-faire neglect the fact that public spending in the Health Service, especially on the wages side, sustains rather than drains the private sector. Also, there is not a hospital built in this country, not a drug supplied and no equipment used which is not provided by the private enterprise sector. It is in this light that we see the claim that there is no cash to raise the wages of the low paid in the health sector, whereas there has been no trouble about undertaking the Falklands dispute and paying the cost later. There is cash for killing but not for curing. There is cash for the death industry but not for the life industry of the Health Service. It is a disgrace that reflects upon this Government and it is a disgrace that will reflect upon the House if it does not oppose the Government later tonight.

Mr. Terry Davis: The Secretary of State began his remarks by saying that the heart of the debate would be whether the action that is being taken by Health Service workers could be justified. The real heart of the debate is whether the right hon. Gentleman's attitude can be justified. It is his attitude which is responsible for the action that is being taken by Health Service workers. It is his attitude which is responsible for the distress and suffering of patients.
The right hon. Gentleman has offered those who work in the Health Service some pay increases which, on average, are 6 per cent. and 7·5 per cent. depending on the group to which they belong. However, the Government have agreed increases for other groups of workers that are

much higher than 6 per cent. and 7·5 per cent. They have agreed increases of 10 per cent. for firemen, 13 per cent. for the police, 14 per cent. for senior civil servants and 18 per cent. for judges. How does the right hon. Gentleman justify the difference in the increases?
Are those in the other groups paid lower wages than those paid to Health Service workers? Obviously not. Is it because firemen, police, senior civil servants and judges work in conditions which are more unpleasant than those of Health Service workers? Obviously not. The police and the firemen may encounter unpleasant conditions but I doubt whether they would argue that their conditions are more unpleasant than those experienced by Health Service workers in our hospitals, especially in the kitchens and laundry rooms of those hospitals. The difference in treatment is not justified on those grounds.
Have firemen, the police, senior civil servants and judges seen a reduction in their numbers? Obviously not. There have been increases in the numbers in all those groups. Is there a difference because those people are in work and others are unemployed? That is obviously not so because that factor applies to all groups. Is it because the other groups do not enjoy the same pension rights as those who work in the Health Service? Obviously not. The fact is that the Government have no justification for their miserable offer to those who work in the Health Service and who are paid measurably low wages.
The Government want to take into account in determining the wages of those who work in the Health Service something that they call "market forces"—in other words, supply and demand. Apparently, it would mean that because there are far too many people—more than 3 million—registered as unemployed, those who work in the Health Service should accept lower wage increases. Does that not apply to firemen, policemen, senior civil servants, judges and the rest? Of course it does.
If the Secretary of State wishes to announce to the House that he is prepared to discuss an increase in the figures of 6 per cent. and 7·5 per cent. on average, let him intervene. That would be welcome news to all Labour Members.

Mr. Fowler: The point I should like to make is that the Government have increased their offer twice. We have increased it once for the nurses, and on a second occasion following discussions with the unions. However, at no stage have the union moved one jot from their position.

Mr. Davis: The Secretary of State has shown that he is either very bad or very clever with his figures, depending on how one looks at it. When he says that the Government have increased their offer twice, he means that they have increased each offer once. They have made an increase from 4 per cent. to 6 per cent. for one group, and from 6 per cent. to 7·5 per cent. for another group. They have moved once, and they refused to move again. That is the problem. The Secretary of State refuses to negotiate. He asks the unions to accept his offer, but negotiation means discussing on both sides what is on the table.

Mr. Tom Benyon: It takes two to negotiate. As I understand the position, the trade unions have refused to budge from their 12 per cent. demand. Even if the Government move up one jot further, how can we know that the unions will come down one jot?

Mr. Davis: It is impossible to know whether the unions will move from 12 per cent. unless people sit around a table and discuss the matter. Neither unions nor management negotiate by public announcement. That is the way that the Government seek to negotiate with the Health Service workers. The Secretary of State invited them to return to the table, but, he says, to discuss the distribution and allocation of the 6 per cent. and the 7·5 per cent. That is not negotiation. It is not negotiation if there are preconditions.
It is against that background that those who work in the NHS feel that they have no alternative, and no other way of making the Secretary of State return to the negotiating table with them. My information is that the trade unions would return to the negotiating table as soon as the Secretary of State opened the door to the room, but he will not do that. Instead of sitting down with representatives of the Health Service unions, the Secretary of State tried first to divide the nurses from the Health Service workers. Having failed, he is trying to separate the patients from the health workers and to set the patients against the workers.
The Secretary of State says—I agree with him on this—that people want hospitals to get back to caring for the sick. That is what the public want, and so do the people who work in those hospitals. The Secretary of State appealed to the trade unions to end their action, and proposed a three-point plan. I propose, on behalf of myself and my hon. Friends, a one-point plan. We appeal to the Secretary of State to put an end to the need for industrial action by engaging in real discussions, without any preconditions, with the representatives of the Health Service unions. It is his refusal to negotiate that is at the heart of the dispute and at the heart of the debate.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Having heard the latest explanation why the Labour Party is backing the Health Service strike, I begin to think that perhaps the two days that my right hon. Friend and I spent locked in negotiation with the TUC health committee were some kind of bad dream that I now recollect. We have tried to negotiate in a genuine attempt to settle the dispute, having already moved on the offer that we made to the nurses and midwives from the original 4 per cent. pay factor. In the course of those two days, the trade union side did not budge from the 12 per cent. demand, which my right hon. Friend valued at his figure, or the overall 20 per cent, which I valued at £1 billion in earlier speeches.
The form of negotiation that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) suggested, would be one in which the Government kept meeting the Health Service unions to edge nearer and nearer the 12 per cent. demand that they have backed up with strike action.
At times today, we have been far from negotiating. Labour Members have brought the rancour of the picket lines into the Chamber. Certain matters ought to unite us on a subject as sensitive as health care. We are united in agreeing on the basic humanity and dedication of the bulk of those in the Health Service at all times. The hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) made an unworthy attack on the way that the Government have responded to today's news that the strike was suspended in some London hospitals after the bombing outrages. I first heard the news of the bombings and the response in the LBC studios in London. My spontaneous and unconsidered

reaction, and the reaction of every hon. Member, was to congratulate the picket lines and the trade unions on their gesture following the bomb outrage.
There are no points between us on that and there ought to be no points between us about the inhumanity of the strike action continuing in other parts of the country, and, in some places, putting accident victims, who are not victims of the IRA, at risk. As my right hon. Friend revealed, emergency cover has been withdrawn by the ambulance service in Lincolnshire, and he gave other examples which showed the extent to which the TUC is unable to guarantee emergency cover. People go too far in place after place and there is no condemnation of that action by the Labour Party.
We have also, sadly, been divided on the facts underlying the dispute. I made a statement a week or two ago about people fiddling the figures to belittle the Government's offer. The speech of the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) in particular, supported by that of the hon. Member for Crewe, relied heavily on so-called research that was based on these fiddled figures.
I hope that no one will swap the more obscure figures that have been bandied about with endless discussions and curious comparisons of basic rates at minimums of scale, leaving out bonuses and the rest. The essential figures shine through.

Mr. Lofthouse: rose—

Mr. Peter Hardy: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I am sorry, I do not have time to give way.
Essential figures shine through the published documents, the computer payroll figures and so on.
It has been suggested that the Government's figures are not based on a commitment to the National Health Service. We have demonstrated that commitment by increasing expenditure in real terms on the NHS throughout our period of office. If those plans are regarded as inadequate, I should point out that we have maintained the planned growth that the previous Government published in their White Paper. There will be a real growth of 6 per cent. by this time next year, and the idea that that is some plot on the part of the Government to undermine the NHS seems to me to be difficult to sustain.
The hon. Member for Crewe said that the improved offer, with its effect on the cash limits of the NHS, undermines that to some extent. We announced increased cash limits for the NHS to accommodate our final offer, although the increased cash limits did not accommodate the entire offer. We had to dig into some of the growth money for the NHS in our plans for next year. It has not extinguished that growth money, but merely delayed the developments of the service that the Government were planning and which we hope will come to fruition as soon as the economy will allow.
That is the basic position on the NHS. There ought to be factual agreement about the movements of pay, the extent of the offer and what it is worth to individual members. I find it unforgiveable that those who are encouraging Health Service workers to take strike action against patients are so anxious that the health workers should not know the precise and accurate details of the money that is on offer and that the trade union leaders are insisting on refusing.
At one point, the hon. Member for Crewe sounded as though she were trying to challenge a basic factual point, that under this Government the pay of nurses and midwives has increased ahead of inflation. Between 1978 and 1979 and between 1981 and 1982 the pay of all nurses and midwives increased by 60 per cent., that of ward sisters by 63 per cent., and that of staff nurses by 60 per cent., while the retail price index increased by 53 per cent. We have increased the pay of nurses and midwives ahead of inflation. At the same time, their working week has been reduced from 40 hours to 37½hours. That is the only fair basis on which to judge the special case that the Government are now making for nurses.
Even more rancour usually enters into arguments about the present pay of ancillary workers and the offer made to them. No one denies that there are some low paid health workers. There are also low paid workers in outside industry that has to pay the taxation and finance to support the Health Service. It does no service to anyone in the Health Service to exaggerate grotesquely the extent to which they are low paid and the value of the offer now made to them.
Before the hon. Member for Wood Green calls me a "creep" and provokes me into the slightly higher level of wit that I might be able to achieve in response, I shall clutch on to the one point in his speech where agreement glimmered through for a moment. The hon. Gentleman agreed and conceded that the average figures we have been giving on earnings for ancillaries are correct. Full-time male ancillaries are paid £104 a week and full-time women ancillaries £84 a week. The hon. Gentleman wants to bring in part-timers. He then compares the pay of part-timers with full-time pay in outside industries.
The Government's figures are accurate. The hon. Gentleman concedes the truth of average earnings. What he does not reveal is that the offer that we are making that has been rejected by his union would increase the figure of £104 to £110, an increase of £6 a week, and the £84 to £89, an increase of £5 a week.

Mr. Race: The Minister likes to present himself as the acceptable face of Thatcherite extremism. What he says about Health Service pay is not right. I remarked in my speech that part-time workers were receiving on average £42 a week. It was a deception for the Government to use only figures for full-time manual workers and full-time female manual workers in the ancillary staff field. Most ancillary staff are much lower paid. They would receive a tiny increase on the basis of the Government's offer.

Mr. Clarke: Half the staff are part-time. However, the average is meaningless in relation to part-time workers. Everything depends upon how many hours the individual works. In making comparisons with the outside world in respect of hourly rates, one has to compare the earnings for full-time male or female ancillaries. I shall give some indication of the earnings of other groups and what the offer represents.
I should like to make clear the basis of the figures that I use. I reject the use of convoluted and tortuous figures taking basic rates, minimum scales, making deductions for accommodation and for food and taking off the national insurance contribution without taking into account tax allowances, talking only of the final additional offer and implying that it represents the whole offer. The only basis

on which one can deal factually with a situation that can be made into a minefield of figures by those intent on doing so is to talk in terms of average earnings. Deductions represent variations according to individual circum-stances. Average earnings give rise to a totally different figure.
A staff nurse at the minimum of the scale earns £99 a week and would be taken to £107 a week, an increase of about £7.50. Those on the maximum of £120 would be taken to £130, an increase of about £9. A qualified ambulanceman earns at the moment about £142 a week and would be taken to about £151, an increase of £9. I can give other examples, leaving out the London weighting allowance, available to people in the constituency of Wood Green, which adds anything up to 13 per cent. The tables can appear in Hansard if anyone wishes to see them.
I am not saying that these average earnings mean that people are grossly overpaid. I am not saying that they represent wages that are comfortable to live on. There are many people, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham) has remarked, who find that in the middle of a recession it is not easy to live on the wages they receive. Many of those employed in the Health Service receive above the average pay for industrial workers. There are some low paid, but the proportion is no higher than in the generality of industry.
A special claim is put by the section of the Labour Party that, by and large, has taken part in the debate, who say that drastic industrial action will be taken against patients unless this group of workers is shoved up at the expense of other workers who have not received more than 6 per cent. and who do not have the same security of employment.

Mr. Hardy: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I am sorry. I have already given way once.
I have talked of the astonishing reverse of the Labour Party, which now supports industrial action after unreservedly condemning it as recently as 1979. Their record in Government speaks even more of a complete volteface. They presided over a dramatic decrease in the real earnings of those employed in the Health Service between 1975 and 1979. In the past four years of the Labour Government's period of office, the pay of a staff nurse increased by 31 per cent. while the retail price index rose by 63 per cent.
In those four years, living standards for those employed in the Health Service declined to such an extent that the Government wound up with the winter of discontent. For the first time violent industrial action broke out in the Health Service. The Labour Government condemned that strike action. The Conservative Party, as a responsible Opposition, also condemned the strike action. That contrasts with the behaviour of the Labour Opposition today.
The Labour Government crowned their performance by giving in to the industrial action. This put into the driving seat in the Health Service the militant leadership of NUPE, COHSE and others who believe that they can win, as they did by industrial action against a weak and supine Labour Government, increases for their workers. With that record, the Opposition have no basis for lecturing the Government.
The Government are determined to withstand the industrial action that we all face. We believe that the


public would think it wrong for extra pay to be given to people prepared to take such inhumane action against patients. However, we would like to move away from this spotted history of the Labour Party and achieve better long-term arrangements for pay in the Health Service. Since 1980, the Government have been trying to get negotiations going covering new permanent arrangements for nurses and midwives. A reply was received from the staff side after a year. Matters have improved. We are now involved in negotiations with the staff side, although I regret to say that some difficulty seems to arise for some unions in finding time in their diaries for the meetings that the Government and the Royal College of Nursing wish to see proceed.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has reaffirmed that the Government are anxious to discuss future arrangements for the ancillaries if they want to come to our open door. However, until they respond and show some interest in better long-term arrangements, I shall not be rid of the suspicion that there are some people, although by no means all—I exempt the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives and parts of COHSE—in this strange coalition of unions running the present industrial action who do not want better long term arrangements for their members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] They resent the possible restriction of activity for trade union negotiations. They like the possibility of annual confrontation for the self-same political reasons as several hon. Members who have spoken in this debate, not least the hon. Member for Wood Green.
The hon. Member for Wood Green began his speech by referring to low pay in the Health Service but soon trailed off into the Falklands, Polaris and other familiar themes. The hon. Gentleman aligned himself with people such as Arthur Scargill, who was quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mrs. Faith) as saying that the way to beat the Tebbit law was to ally oneself with the nurses' picket lines. This represents a transformation for the Labour Party. It is not a transformation of the position of the hon. Member for Wood Green, or of the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) who deplored the record of his own Government. It is, however, a disgraceful transformation in the position of the Labour Front Bench, which has allowed itself to be towed into a situation in which it will not attack this political action.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) appeared to condemn some industrial action, but supported the statement of a COHSE spokesman. It sounds as though the Social Democrats are in favour of industrial action that does not damage patients. It is our belief that one cannot take industrial action in the Health Service that does not damage patients. The 8 per cent. of the Liberal Party who were present did not condemn industrial action. Everyone knows—if they do not believe us, they should read what is being said by the medical staff—the grave and serious risks being caused by industrial action in the Health Service.
As no one will condemn that action, it is being widened by a few groups into so-called sympathetic action, as the hard Left of the Labour Party see the unhappy dispute as an opportunity to take on the Government. Fortunately, apart from a few miners posing for photographs on picket lines, that sympathetic action seems largely to be incommoding one boat off Felixstowe. The extent to which sympathetic action is being organised by trade

unionists, as opposed to some of the wilder of their trade union leaders, is fortunately restrained. Those who are tempted to go that way should realise how silly it can all become. One hears that a number of passengers were stuck on a boat trying to get into Felixstowe. What on earth has that to do with the Health Service dispute? Are my right hon. Friend and myself supposed to see a shaft of light and recognise the sudden virtues of the nurses' or the Health Service claim because the whole labour and trade union movement has finally brought a boat to a halt in support of the Health Service? That is the pathetic and silly side of this political action. It has a darker side as well. It will injure, and run the risk of killing innocent people.

Mr. Race: You are responsible. You are the killer.

Mr. Clarke: That should be condemned by the Opposition, and they should stop it now.

Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—

The House divided: Ayes 250, Noes 303.

Division No. 284]
[7.11 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Adams, Allen
Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)


Alton, David
Deakins, Eric


Anderson, Donald
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dewar, Donald


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dixon, Donald


Ashton, Joe
Dobson, Frank


Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)
Dormand, Jack


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dubs, Alfred


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Dunnett, Jack


Beith, A. J.
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Eadie, Alex


Bennett, Andrew (St'Kp't N)
Eastham, Ken


Bidwell, Sydney
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
English, Michael


Bottomley, Rt Hon A. (M'b'ro)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Bradley, Tom
Evans, John (Newton)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ewing, Harry


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Faulds, Andrew


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Field, Frank


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Fitch, Alan


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Flannery, Martin


Buchan, Norman
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Forrester, John


Campbell, Ian
Foster, Derek


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Foulkes, George


Canavan, Dennis
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Cant, R. B.
Freud, Clement


Carmichael, Neil
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Cartwright, John
George, Bruce


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clarke, Thomas C'b'dge, A'rie
Ginsburg, David


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Golding, John


Cohen, Stanley
Gourlay, Harry


Coleman, Donald
Graham, Ted


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Grant, John (Islington C)


Conlan, Bernard
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Cook, Robin F.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Cowans, Harry
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Hardy, Peter


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Crawshaw, Richard
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Crowther, Stan
Haynes, Frank


Cryer, Bob
Heffer, Eric S.


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Home Robertson, John


Dalyell, Tam
Homewood, William


Davidson, Arthur
Hooley, Frank


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)






Hoyle, Douglas
Race, Reg


Huckfield, Les
Radice, Giles


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Richardson, Jo


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Janner, Hon Greville
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


John, Brynmor
Robertson, George


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Rooker, J. W.


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Roper, John


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Kerr, Russell
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Kilfedder, James A.
Rowlands, Ted


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Ryman, John


Lambie, David
Sandelson, Neville


Lamond, James
Sever, John


Leadbitter, Ted
Sheerman, Barry


Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Litherland, Robert
Short, Mrs Renée


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Silverman, Julius


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Skinner, Dennis


McCartney, Hugh
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


McElhone, Frank
Snape, Peter


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Soley, Clive


McKelvey, William
Spearing, Nigel


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Spriggs, Leslie


Maclennan, Robert
Stallard, A. W.


McMahon, Andrew
Steel, Rt Hon David


McNally, Thomas
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


McNamara, Kevin
Stoddart, David


McWilliam, John
Strang, Gavin


Marks, Kenneth
Straw, Jack


Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Maxton, John
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Tilley, John


Meacher, Michael
Tinn, James


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Torney, Tom


Mikardo, Ian
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Wainwright, R. (Colne V)


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Watkins, David


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Weetch, Ken


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Welsh, Michael


Morton, George
White, Frank R.


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Whitehead, Phillip


Newens, Stanley
Whitlock, William


O'Halloran, Michael
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


O'Neill, Martin
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)


Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Park, George
Winnick, David


Parker, John
Woodall, Alec


Parry, Robert
Woolmer, Kenneth


Pavitt, Laurie
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Pendry, Tom
Wright, Sheila


Penhaligon, David
Young, David (Bolton E)


Pitt, William Henry



Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Prescott, John
Mr. Ron Leighton and


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Dr. Edmund Marshall.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Ancram, Michael


Altken, Jonathan
Arnold, Tom


Alexander, Richard
Aspinwall, Jack


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Atkins, Robert (Preston N)





Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh


Banks, Robert
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fry, Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Goodhew, Sir Victor


Best, Keith
Goodlad, Alastair


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gorst, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gow, Ian


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gower, Sir Raymond


Blackburn, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Blaker, Peter
Gray, Hamish


Body, Richard
Greenway, Harry


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Grist, Ian


Bowden, Andrew
Grylls, Michael


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gummer, John Selwyn


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hamilton, Hon A.


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Brinton, Tim
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Hannam, John


Brooke, Hon Peter
Haselhurst, Alan


Brotherton, Michael
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Hawkins, Sir Paul


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hawksley, Warren


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hayhoe, Barney


Bryan, Sir Paul
Heddle, John


Buck, Antony
Henderson, Barry


Budgen, Nick
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Bulmer, Esmond
Hicks, Robert


Burden, Sir Frederick
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Butcher, John
Hill, James


Butler, Hon Adam
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hordern, Peter


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Chapman, Sydney
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Churchill, W. S.
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Irvine, Rt Hon Bryant Godman


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jessel, Toby


Clegg, Sir Walter
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Colvin, Michael
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, John
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Cormack, Patrick
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Corrie, John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Costain, Sir Albert
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Cranborne, Viscount
Kimball, Sir Marcus


Crouch, David
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Mrs Jill


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Knox, David


Dover, Denshore
Lamont, Norman


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lang, Ian


Durant, Tony
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Dykes, Hugh
Latham, Michael


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lawrence, Ivan


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Eggar, Tim
Lee, John


Elliott, Sir William
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Emery, Sir Peter
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Eyre, Reginald
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Fairgrieve, Sir Russell
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Loveridge, John


Farr, John
Luce, Richard


Fell, Sir Anthony
Lyell, Nicholas


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
McCrindle, Robert


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Macfarlane, Neil


Fisher, Sir Nigel
MacGregor, John


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Forman, Nigel
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)






McQuarrie, Albert
Royle, Sir Anthony


Madel, David
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Major, John
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Marland, Paul
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Marlow, Antony
Scott, Nicholas


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Mates, Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Mawby, Ray
Shepherd, Richard


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Shersby, Michael


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Silvester, Fred


Mayhew, Patrick
Sims, Roger


Mellor, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Smith, Dudley


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Speed, Keith


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Speller, Tony


Miscampbell, Norman
Spence, John


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Moate, Roger
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Monro, Sir Hector
Squire, Robin


Montgomery, Fergus
Stainton, Keith


Moore, John
Stanley, John


Morgan, Geraint
Steen, Anthony


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Stevens, Martin


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Stewart, b. (E Renfrewshire)


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Mudd, David
Stradling Thomas, J.


Murphy, Christopher
Tapsell, Peter


Myles, David
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Neale, Gerrard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Needham, Richard
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Nelson, Anthony
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Neubert, Michael
Thompson, Donald


Newton, Tony
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Normanton, Tom
Thornton, Malcolm


Nott, Rt Hon John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Onslow, Cranley
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Trippier, David


Osborn, John
Trotter, Neville


Page, John (Harrow, West)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Viggers, Peter


Parris, Matthew
Waddington, David


Pattie, Geoffrey
Wakeham, John


Pawsey, James
Waldegrave, Hon William


Percival, Sir Ian
Walker, B. (Perth)


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Wall, Sir Patrick


Pink, R. Bonner
Waller, Gary


Pollock, Alexander
Walters, Dennis


Porter, Barry
Ward, John


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Warren, Kenneth


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Watson, John


Proctor, K. Harvey
Wells, Bowen


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wheeler, John


Rathbone, Tim
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Whitney, Raymond


Renton, Tim
Wilkinson, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Williams, D. (Montgomery)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Winterton, Nicholas


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Wolfson, Mark


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey



Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Tellers for the Noes:


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Rossi, Hugh
Mr. Carol Mather.


Rost, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

Industrial Training

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Industrial Training (Furniture and Timber Industry Board) (Revocation) Order 1982 (S.I., 1982 No. 733), the Industrial Training (Shipbuilding) (Revocation) Order 1982 (S.I., 1982 No. 774), the Industrial Training (Distributive Board) (Revocation) Order 1982 (S.I., 1982 No. 775), the Industrial Training (Food, Drink and Tobacco Board) (Revocation) Order 1982 (S.I., 1982, No. 776), the Industrial Training (Ceramics, Glass and Mineral Products Board) (Revocation) Order 1982 (S.I., 1982, No. 777), and the Industrial Training (Cotton and Allied Textiles Board) (Revocation) Order 1982 (S.I., 1982, No. 778), dated 2 June 1982, copies of which were laid before this House on 11 June, be annulled. 
This is a cut-down rerun of the debate of 14 June on similar orders. Much of what we said then is relevant to today's discussion. The arguments that we advanced against the earlier orders apply with equal force to the matters before the House. Only the names have changed; the weakness of the Government's case is unaltered.
I shall not repeat all the arguments that we used on the previous occasion, because they are on the record, but I must repeat some of the important questions that the Opposition posed, because too many of those questions remain unanswered. Ministers have had five weeks in which to study the Official. Report and brief themselves. I hope, therefore, that we shall have more success with our questions and the answers to them.
My starting point must be to remind the House that this is the second stage of the Government's determined effort to march backwards to the time when Britain had no coherent and credible manpower policies and training was unorganised and inadequate and to a period of freedom for industry to train or to do otherwise. Unfortunately, too many chose to do otherwise.
I said that this was the second stage of the Government's retrogression in these matters, but perhaps I should have said that it is the third stage, because the Employment and Training Act 1981 was the first stage.
There are grounds for fearing that the step-by-step approach is not limited to the Government's reactionary, crude and doctrinaire attitude to industrial relations. In this, as in other matters, every step that they take is a backward step. Each step takes us further from the more efficient, productive and competitive economy that we and they say we should be striving to achieve.
On the previous occasion when we debated orders abolishing ITBs I made specific references to the industries affected by those orders. I asked how the successor arrangements matched up to the assurances that had been given to Parliament. I pointed out that, for example, the former Secretary of State for Employment, now the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, had assured a Select Committee that any voluntary arrangements would include the monitoring of skill shortages and other training needs, arranging voluntary action to alleviate them and devising, keeping up to date and publicising training standards.
I went through the proposed voluntary arrangements submitted to the House by the Under-Secretary and showed, I believe, beyond doubt that the staffing provisions proposed by the limited number of successor bodies that were emerging were inadequate and that those bodies would never lend themselves to any monitoring, let alone effective monitoring.
Despite being pressed, the best that the Under-Secretary could do was to say that he had made it clear that there should be monitoring of all skill shortages in the non-statutory arrangements. I hope that we shall get a more adequate response today about the monitoring of, and by, the successor bodies.
Is the Under-Secretary really so naive as to believe that, because he says that a certain thing should happen, it will happen? Who is to ensure that effective action is taken if skill shortages are identified? What about the monitoring of training standards and all the other matters that Ministers talk about so glibly when they are before Select Committees? May we be told exactly what provisions the Minister has insisted upon in each of the industries that are under scrutiny today?
No less important is the administration of key training grants—the money supplied from public funds to assist the financing of key training activities. I recall asking in our earlier debate whether those grants would continue to be paid in sectors where the statutory board had been abolished and, if so, whether the grants would be handled by the successor bodies. I asked what assurances the Minister could give that they would be handled fairly and objectively if their administration was in the hands of employers' associations which might represent only a part of the industry. We had no adequate answer from the Minister. The House is entitled to know how public funds will be safeguarded from abuse—that is, of course, if the key training grants continue to be paid, although we do not yet even know that.
Another matter that was glossed over by Ministers in the earlier debate was the disposal of board assets. The Under-Secretary said that it was surely right that the assets should be given away without charge because, in most cases, those assets had been paid for by employers through the levy, but apparently the Government were contemplat-ing giving them away to people other than those employers who had paid for them—such as the shipbuilding ITB' s centre at Southampton. I am glad to see the Under-Secretary shaking his head, and I am waiting for him to confirm that what was said in the MSC minutes is not true.
On the last occasion that we debated these matters in the House, I quoted the reference in the commission's paper to the shipbuilding ITB centre at Southampton. The shipbuilding industry is the subject of one of the orders before the House tonight, and apparently there was a likelihood of that industrial training board centre being offered to a trust. I pointed out the folly of the MSC in giving to an organisation called the Shenley Trust the important and highly expensive facility at Fort William for training divers, which has subsequently been the subject of an inquiry by the Public Accounts Committee and has been debated in this Chamber. It appears that the Government learn nothing from experience.
I quoted the commission's paper MSC/82/N7, which had been prepared by the training services division of the MSC. It said that where successive bodies could make effective use of assets, they should normally have first claim, but that other dispositions were possible. I asked to whom, and with what safeguards?

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): I thank the right hon. Member for giving way. I intervene in an effort to be helpful. I hope

that he will agree with me, when training assets have hitherto belonged to a statutory training board, and if there is a successor body setting out to monitor training, providing—I stress "providing"—the financial criteria are met, that it would be more sensible for that body to take over the training assets than for the assets to be disposed of or sold as though they were of no consequence.

Mr. Walker: Despite our reservations about the Government's overall approach to these matters, I understand what the Under-Secretary is saying. However, it is inconsistent with the MSC documents that I have seen. I shall give another example in a moment, and it will be interesting to hear the Under-Secretary's reply, in view of what he has just said to me.
When we debated the matter on 14 June, I asked what statutory authority the Government had for giving away boards' assets in this manner. That was the reference in the MSC document which said that other dispositions were possible apart from those that the Under-Secretary has just described. When I asked what the statutory authority was, the Under-Secretary quoted the powers given to the commission in the 1973 Act. Surely his officials have told him that that Act does not empower the commission or the Government to give away public and board assets in the manner that is being suggested by some people.
Another example is causing legitimate concern. One of these orders abolishes the distributive industry training board. That training board has an expensive facility at Knutsford in Cheshire producing audio-visual training aids. When the members of that board realised that their board was to be killed off by the Government, they proposed the establishment of a tripartite training foundation, which would retain some of the board's assets, including the video centre which was producing audio-visual training aids. I assume, in view of what the Under-Secretary said in our last debate and has just said, that that successor body, the tripartite training foundation, would have first claim on the assets. So this important asset, the video training centre, should go to that foundation.
However, a member of the board wrote to me saying:
There is a major problem regarding the disposal of the Knutsford Video Centre in the event that the proposals for a training foundation are unacceptable".
The Under-Secretary has been most helpful and has sent to Labour Members and placed in the Library a copy of a document that describes the successor bodies, but I find no reference to this tripartite training foundation proposed by the distributive industry training board. Presumably, therefore, the proposals for that foundation were unacceptable to the Government or to the MSC, or to both.
The letter went on:
It is the view of many Board members, including myself, that the ultimate decision regarding the disposal of this Board asset will be in the control of the Treasury. The Treasury is only concerned with maximising the return on the disposal of this asset. While there are a few organisations who have expressed an interest in acquiring Knutsford for training purposes"— not the town, of course, but the training centre—
I understand that producers of pornographic films have also maintained an interest in its acquisition.
The hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) laughs. I find nothing funny in the thought that public assets should be turned over from important training purposes to the production of dirty pictures. The hon. Member may find it funny, and I hope that he will tell his constituents that he thinks it is very funny that training facilities may be turned over to the production of dirty pictures.

Dr. Keith Hampson: The right hon. Gentleman knows me better than that. I was laughing because his own Front Bench was in hysterics.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman can wriggle out of it, and he is good at wriggling on these occasions.
I was quoting a letter that I received in which the writer, a member of the board, said that producers of pornographic films were interested in acquiring the training centre at Knutsford. He went on:
Since the latter group are likely to be able to offer substantially greater sums to acquire Knutsford there is a very real danger that the Treasury will authorise the sale of Knutsford for non-training use since this will produce a greater return".
That is in sharp contrast to what the Government Front Bench have been saying up to now. We are entitled to know what the role of the Treasury is in these matters. We have been given the impression up to now that these matters were in the hands of the Department of Employment—and perhaps peripherally, in so far as it has any further influence with the Government, the MSC. Is there the remotest chance that this valuable asset will fall into the hands of dirty picture producers? Are the pals of porn to be sponsored by Tebbit?
Before I leave the distributive industry training board, I want to put on record the published unanimous view of that board:
no system of voluntary organisations without the statutory support of the Board will ensure the maintenance of training standards amid the technological changes rapidly overtaking the industry".
I should add that I have also received a letter saying
The Board members of the Distributive Industry Training Board have expressed concern that the whole issue of voluntary training arrangements has been cloaked in great secrecy by the Government. Even the MSC appears to be in ignorance.
The writer, who is a board member, goes on to say:
It is quite evident that, contrary to the Minister's earlier statement that he would only issue revocation orders where satisfactory voluntary training arrangements had been established, he does appear intent on winding up the DITB whether or not any sort of voluntary training arrangements are made".
I have no doubt that that is equally true of all the other boards that are being axed.
I am hesitant to inflict further and lengthy quotations on the House, particularly as I want to keep my speech short, because I understand that it is hoped that the debate may not take up the full time allocated to it to allow for other important business. However, in such complex and technical matters as those before the House, it would be wise to introduce the views of those who may not be here but who are none the less professionally involved in training and who have access to an expertise and understanding that is likely to surpass that of at least the majority of hon. Members.
I should like to quote from the chairman's address, published in the annual report of the furniture and timber industry training board, which is also under consideration. The chairman reminded his members of the words of the noble Lord Gowrie in another place, when he was Minister of State, Department of Employment, when he said:
Government should give evidence that voluntary arrangements are adequate to meet essential training needs before any statutory training board is abolished, and I can give our absolute assurance that our intention is to do so."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 July 1981; Vol. 423, c. 606.]

I am bound to say that the subsequent performance of those people who grace the Treasury Front Bench has fallen a long way behind that absolute assurance given by the noble Lord.
The chairman of the furniture and timber industry training board went on to say:
This statement: and the criteria announced by the Secretary of State in the House on. November 26th underpin the requirements spelled out by the MSC which voluntary bodies will have to meet before they will be accepted as a credible alterative for a statutory ITS.
He then spelt out the criteria that he believed would have to be met before the successor arrangements could be accepted as such a credible alternative to a statutory board. They were the MSC criteria, presumably endorsed by the Government. If the Government have a different view, we are entitled to know. Until the Government have repudiated them, we must assume that these are the criteria endorsed by the Government.
The first criterion is:
whether the proposals include a central body for determining a training strategy for the Industry which either consists of a tripartite organisation (i.e. employer, trade union and educational representation) or provides effectively for appropriate consultation and agreement between employers, trade union and educational representatives.
I hope that the Government will prove me wrong, but for not one of the industries for which the boards are being established are there proposals for the creation of such a central organisation. The first criterion is not being met in a single industry for which the board is being abolished.
The second criterion is:
whether the arrangements proposed already cover the majority of firms and employees in the Industry (and would be open to all firms in the Industry) and whether there is evidence that the majority of firms currently in scope of the statutory Board would actively support these arrangements".
That is not the case in a single industry for which the board is being abolished. In several of those industries the only successor arrangements are those that are being proposed by exclusive employers' associations—exclusive in the sense that they apply only to their own members.
The third criterion is:
whether the training arrangements would be adequately sniffed and funded to fulfil the most important training objectives in the sector (this implies a capacity to assess and monitor manpower needs and training perfomance, and to design and implement a training strategy)".
Again, we have spelt out for the benefit of the House what the Government have told us in their document—that the successor arrangements are pathetically understaffed. At the very best, scores of staff employed on monitoring and training and ensuring the adequacy of training have been replaced by a mere handful of people.

Mr. Michael Martin: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in view of the proposals, co Lieges of engineering which give excellent training to apprentices may have their student intake damaged? They already suffer through unemployment in Britain.

Mr. Walker: There will be an inevitable decline in the numbers of apprentices, technicians and technologists undergoing training by day release and other courses at colleges of technology and polytechnics. Once the financial and other coercions, for want of a better word, are relaxed—the stick and carrot principle of the 1964. Act—there will be a fall in the number of apprentices and hence in the number available to take advantage of the facilities at colleges of higher technology and higher education.

Mr. Cyril Smith: To take that point further, I have met apprentices in my constituency who were sponsored by the training board to full-time apprenticeships within training schools. Presumably those apprenticeships will disappear.

Mr. Walker: That is an important point which ran through my mind as I prepared my notes for this speech. I hope that the Government will comment on it. What will happen to the sponsored awards scheme and the grants that until now have been available to offset the decline in the number of apprentices in employment?
Inevitably, in the present economic circumstances, there has been a sharp decline in the number of apprenticeships—for example, in the engineering industry the intake this year will be half that which the engineering industry board thinks appropriate—because of the decrease in employment and because by and large the boards were set up only to provide training for those in employment. Governments since 1970 have tried to offset that by making money available to enable young unemployed people to take advantage of apprenticeship schemes. How will that money, if it is available, be administered by the successor bodies?
I shall omit some of the criteria listed in the annual report of the furniture and timber industry training board as having been laid down for successor bodies to be a credible alternative to statutory industry training boards.
In conclusion, the chairman of the board states:
Added together these"— the criteria—
are formidable requirements which the Board is at present well equipped to deal with successfully. They are bound to be both difficult and expensive to meet through voluntary arrangements bearing in mind that a voluntary system involves firms that volunteer paying the share of those who opt out. This situation would be even further aggravated should there be a voluntary levy and grant system, either initially or subsequently because the criteria were not being achieved. All those firms likely to receive less than they pay in will have a strong incentive to opt out, leaving those doing a good training job to pay the entire bill.
I earnestly suggest that it would be wise for all Trade Associations and firms with which we are concerned to look at the situation again. They may well find that voluntary arrangements, which reasonably meet the criteria, could be even more costly to most individual firms than the present system, particularly bearing in mind that only the volunteers will pay.
The Minister dismissed such views on 14 June. He shakes his head, but hon. Members should look at the record. When I referred to the unanimous condemnation of the Government's policy by all the board chairmen—even the chairmen of the surviving boards condemn it—he somewhat sneeringly suggested "Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?"—quoting Miss Mandy Rice-Davies. Almost everyone involved in training in one way or another has been critical of the Government. Does he dismiss the views of them all? Are Ministers prepared to listen only to those, like themselves, who know little or nothing about the subject, and to employers who know something about the subject, but who have an even keener vested interest than the professional staffs and trainers?
Inevitably, in the present economic circumstances, hard-pressed employers, their backs pushed to the wall by the Government's economic policies, will seek savings by cutting training and will see the abolition of statutory obligations to train as a means of doing so. That makes it all the more important that the Government should have

the carrot and stick of the 1964 Act available to ensure that the quality and quantity of training at such a crucial time is maintained.
It must seem extraordinary to many that the Government, who are all too ready to pay lip service to the importance of training, should be so eager to dismantle the machinery that delivers that training. I have spoken longer than I intended to do and have certainly spoken long enough. However, I conclude by reminding the House of the context of this debate. Earlier today the House learnt the grim facts about the appalling level that unemployment has reached under this Government. Well in excess of 3 million people have been denied the opportunity for worthwhile jobs and fulfilling careers. It is no use Conservative Members sitting there with harsh sneers and smirks on their faces, because many of their constituents are also affected. Today, the level of unemployment is at an all-time high in the history of our country; that is an all-time low for the Government's record.
It must seem incredible to most people that the Government should choose today to ask the House to endorse their further abandonment of the long-established and well-tried arrangements for industrial training; and instead to revert to the wholly inadequate and unsatisfactory system—if such it can be called—that failed us so miserably in the past.
It is the Government's oft-repeated view that lower levels of unemployment can be achieved in any enduring way only if industry becomes more efficient and competitive and if productivity is increased. Whatever the options may be for tackling the great economic and social evil of unemployment, the whole House will accept the need for improved industrial performance. Equally, I hope that the House recognises that we are unlikely to achieve that without an adequately trained, skilled and efficient labour force. The Government have a duty to generate the manpower policies that will start to match the needs of the economy and start to bring some hope to the millions of unemployed. However, instead, they are withdrawing from such responsibilities—as the orders before the House bear witness—and are abandoning training to vague voluntary arrangements that are doomed from the outset to be a non-system based on misplaced faith and hope, but little more. That is why we shall vote for the motion.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Alison): The right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) concluded his speech by referring to the unemployment figures. However, his assertion had a hollow ring, because everybody knows that when the Labour Party was last in office unemployment reached a record level. The Labour Government's performance then has produced the figures that confront us today. We all know that. After five years of the policies pursued by the Labour Government, rising unit labour costs in manufacturing industry contributed to unemployment. However, this debate is not on the unemployment figures.

Mr. Harold Walker: I hope that the Minister will accept my apology for intervening so early in his remarks. However, he cannot get away, once again, with that canard. When the Conservative Party took office there were 1,200,000 unemployed. Today the number is well in excess of 3 million. It has risen two and a half times since his party took office. In the last 18 months of the Labour


Government unemployment fell steadily nearly every month. By the time the Conservative Party took office the fall in unemployment was accelerating. It is important to put the facts on the record. The Government should start to treat this grave issue with the seriousness that it deserves and should cease to hide behind political rhetoric.

Mr. Alison: The right hon. Gentleman's manner shows that he has an extremely sensitive conscience. He interrupted me in an assertive and aggressive way, and a few minutes after I had started my speech he had to justify the Labour Party's record on unemployment. His party's record on unemployment was appalling and, worse, the foundations laid by the policies of a Labour Government weakened the British economy before the arctic climate of the massive oil price rise in 1973.
However, I shall return to the subject that the right hon. Gentleman began by mentioning, even if he did not conclude his speech on it. As he reminded the House, this is our second debate on industrial training boards in just over a month. Before discussing in detail the matters before us, I must briefly remind the House of the reasons why the six orders have been laid. I shall not go into the issue in as much detail as last time, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will acquit me of any obligation to do so. As he said, we have had two debates on the matter so far. I think that I fully explained the background to the Government's policy during our debate on 14 June.
However, the Government have expressed a strong preference for voluntary as opposed to statutory training arrangements. The Manpower Services Commission, in a report published in July 1981 entitled "A Framework for the Future", recommended positively that seven of the 23 statutory boards should continue. As to the other 16 boards, the commission was not able to reach a firm conclusion—a reflection of the division of views between CBI and TUC commissioners—but stated that employer organisations in the industries concerned should develop further their proposed voluntary training arrangements. In responding to the MSC recommendations the then Secretary of State stressed the importance of reaching early decisions and invited industries to work up their proposed alternative training arrangements by the end of September.
In November last year my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the Government's decisions on industrial training boards. Seven of the boards were to continue—not incidentally, the same seven as recommended by the MSC, as petroleum was to remain, but not ceramics. The remaining 16 boards were to be wound up during the course of the 1982–83 financial year. My right hon. Friend told the House that orders to wind up those training boards would not be laid until he was satisfied with the progress being made in setting up alternative training arrangements.
The right hon. Member for Doncaster made a point about monitoring. The MSC has been invited to attend meetings of most non-statutory training organisations. I have no doubt that the commission will keep a close eye on progress and that Ministers will be told the commission's views. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will also monitor extremely closely and carefully the progress of voluntary training bodies.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Under-Secretary of State knows the problem of the road transport

industry training board at Motec in Livingston in my constituency. Will the Minister take it from me that there is a great uncertainty in that training board as well as in other boards? Can something be done to alleviate that uncertainty, which is doing great harm?

Mr. Alison: I take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary may discuss that point at the conclusion of the debate.

Mr. John Grant: We understand that about 100 voluntary organisations will replace the statutory boards. Is the Minister saying that the MSC has attended that many meetings? Is he sure of his facts?

Mr. Alison: I am talking about the non-statutory training organisations which are successor bodies to the present boards. The MSC will be invited along. It is a future prospect.
We are today debating, six of these orders, for the ceramics, glass and mineral products, cotton and allied textiles, distributive, food, drink and tobacco, furniture and timber and shipbuilding ITBs. As I have said the ceramics board was one of those which the MSC recommended positively should continue, although it also said that employer organisations for the glass, pottery and china clay industries, which together cover 40 per cent. of the board's scope, should be invited to develop voluntary proposals.
We believe that the ceramics board has done much good work, but that it has carried out its main tasks and that statutory arrangements are no longer needed. The main industries concerned believe that they can maintain standards under non-statutory arrangements, and the one industry that wishes to continue with a statutory board, the brick industry, is being transferred to come within the scope of the construction ITB. Given that the industries where the MSC thought that the board should be kept are fairly low skill, we came to the reasonable conclusion that it should be wound up.
I should add by way of footnote that when my right hon. Friend made his statement last November he said that the precast concrete industry as well as bricks would be brought within the scope of the construction board when the ceramics ITB was wound up. Since then the precast concrete industry has put forward acceptable voluntary training proposals, and will not therefore now be transferred.

Mr. John Golding: Is the Minister saying that the ceramics industry is an industry of low skill?

Mr. Alison: I am saying the opposite. The high skill of the ceramics industry is one good reason why it is fit to move out.

Mr. Dalyell: What a way to run a country.

Mr. Alison: The ceramics board has a wide mixture of skills. In some parts, such as bricks, there are much lower skills. There is a spectrum of skills in the ceramics board.
Before I outline the reasons why the orders have been laid before Parliament, I shall deal with one or two items of unfinished business from our last debate. The right hon. Member for Doncaster wanted us to deal with some of the questions that he raised.
In opening, the right hon. Gentleman cast doubts on the future of the seven remaining boards, suggesting that they would


live on in constant fear of where the axe may fall next"— [Official Report, 14 June 1982; Vol. 25, c. 621.]
The right hon. Gentleman may not be surprised to learn that his remarks have caused some alarm and despondency, particularly among the staff of the continuing boards. I should therefore like to set out the Government's policy towards the seven continuing boards. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced last November that he would be considering further whether the road transport ITB should be split in two, and we hope to announce a decision on that soon. In addition, my right hon. Friend said that he would review the position of the hotel and catering ITB early in 1983. Apart from that, there are the changes already announced which will be put into effect by the orders laid before Parliament yesterday. The continuing boards know about all these changes, or potential changes. But they know equally that the Government are committed to the success of the remaining statutory boards and will do all that they can to help boards succeed. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, holds regular meetings with board chairmen, and they at least are in no doubt that the Government wishes the statutory boards nothing but success.
The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) also sought to discredit the policy that we are pursuing to ensure that wherever possible the boards' training assets continue to be used for training. I can understand why the Opposition oppose the Government's decision to wind up 16 training boards, although I must say that today as previously their opposition seems pretty unconvincing. But the Opposition also seem to be suggesting that the training assets of boards ought not to be used for the benefit of training, though I am not sure what use they are suggesting for them.
Where boards have assets that are of particular value to training—and here I am talking of such things as training manuals, books and training equipment—those assets have been paid for either by employers through the levy or by the Exchequer, through the financial assistance that has been given to boards. We are firmly of the view that where non-statutory organisations wish to continue to use boards' training materials for the benefit of training in their industries, they should be enabled to do so.
The right hon. Gentleman raised a question about Exchequer surveillance and the tendency of the Treasury always to try to save money. The non-statutory training organisations will monitor the payment of Exchequer-funded training grants in the same way as in the sector that has never been covered by the statutory ITBs. The right hon. Gentleman, while he was in government, never felt that all sectors needed statutory boards in order to handle Exchequer-funded grants. That will continue to happen.
As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said in winding up the last debate on 14 June, training boards have no statutory power to give away their assets, so we have decided that those assets should pass to the MSC. The commission can then use its powers under section 2 of the Employment and Training Act 1973 to grant the assets to non-statutory training organisations. That is being done with appropriate safeguards as to the future use of the materials concerned. I hope that both sides of the House will endorse that policy, whatever views there might be on the Government's decision to wind up the boards.
The Opposition have attempted to make great play of the numbers of training staff being employed by non-statutory training organisations, comparing them with the numbers of staff employed by the statutory boards. The right hon. Gentleman made that point again today. However, it was repetitive. The right hon. Gentleman made the same point on 14 June. I repeat our defence.
The Opposition must be aware that the overwhelming majority of training staff are employed not by training boards but by firms, whether in or out of the scope of a statutory board. The training staff directly employed by boards are a marginal addition to the total training staff employed within their industries. It must also be added that many of the boards' training staff have been engaged not in training people, in setting training standards or in giving training advice, but in running the levy exemption system. Of course, none of the voluntary training organisations will be running levy exemption schemes. Therefore, the training manpower resources available will be used for training, which is as it should be.
The number of training staff being employed by successor organisations varies greatly from industry to industry. It is entirely right that that should be so, as industries vary in the sophistication of their training requirements. The Opposition want these new training organisations to be pushed into the same sort of rigid mould as has proved unsatisfactory in the case of the statutory boards. We are deliberately breaking the mould because we believe that it has exhausted its usefulness. We do not expect all the resulting fragments to be exactly the same size and shape. We are entirely happy that the statutory boards should be replaced by a wide variety of alternative training arrangements.
It is an unfortunate aspect of the statutory boards, as they were set up in the 1960s, that they grouped togeher industries without a great deal in common for training. Let me expand on this point by looking at two of the boards in particular, first, the food, drink and tobacco ITB. This board covers an enormous variety of industries, from meat, bread, confectionary and manufactured foods to whisky, beer, soft drinks and tobacco. They have little in common except that their products pass between people's lips in one way or another. Certainly the manufacturing processes that they employ lead to very different training needs. So it is not surprising that there is a wide variety of training arrangments to replace this single centralised board.
The other very good example of diverse training needs is the industries covered by the ceramics, glass and mineral products industry training board. Some have relatively sophisticated training needs, and here I include the glass and ceramics industries, to which the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) referred. Other industries, such as refractories, sand and gravel, china clay and cement, have rather less complex training needs. But where industries feel it in their interest to stay together, they have done so.
A good example is the quarry products training council, which has taken over from part of the ceramics board. It is a combined training body formed by the Sand and Gravel Association, the British Quarrying and Slag Federation, the Asphalt and Coated Macadam Association and the British Ready Mixed Concrete Association. It is proposed that the training council will be tripartite and Her Majesty's principal inspector of quarries will attend a meeting as the need arises. The Transport and General


Workers Union and the General and Municipal Workers Union have been invited to sit on the council, and a reply to the formal invitation sent to them is now awaited. Among the functions of the council will be the administration of the extractive industries apprenticeship scheme. A chief training officer has been appointed and the recruitment of a field training officer and an administrative assistant is in hand.
I should add that I have received an interesting letter from the head of one of the associations involved with the quarry products training council. In it he says:
Companies look forward to training in ways they consider will meet their needs rather than according to criteria laid down by the board. Our members resent the imputation made by the Opposition in the first debate on training boards that employers would cease to provide training when boards are wound up. They recognise training is both important for running their business, as well as making for a competent workforce.
He continues:
Opposition speakers acknowledged the boards had faults, but felt this was a good reason for strengthening rather than abolishing them. We submit the boards had adequate powers to call for manpower statistical information, monitor training and give or withhold grants. To strengthen these powers would only have imposed more bureaucracy and diverted company training staff away from the proper function of getting the training done.

Mr. Golding: Will the Minister state who the letter is from and with which firm he is connected so that we can monitor his performance?

Mr. Alison: I understand that it comes from Mr. Robert Phillipson, the director general of the British Aggregate Construction Materials Industries.

Mr. Golding: Will the Minister confirm with which firm he is connected so that we can monitor his performance?

Mr. Alison: If I can, I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets that information.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have properly been challenged in the House in the past to give details of a letter from which I quoted. I did so. Does not the same apply to Ministers? If Ministers read out letters—

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My right hon. Friend said who the letter came from.

Mr. Dalyell: But he could not say with which firm he was connected.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): That is a matter for the Minister. He is responsible for what he says to the House. It is not a matter for me.

Mr. Alison: I have already given some information about the letter. I am not trying to conceal anything. My hon. Friend will try to give further information in his winding-up speech.

Dr. Hampson: My right hon. Friend knows that I have some misgivings about some of the bodies. Nevertheless, it must be right that the boards' boundaries, in many of the instances that my right hon. Friend has referred to, need some adjustment. What proportion of the work force do the boards that he is to abolish cover? Some Opposition Members seem to imagine that we are trying to destroy the statutory provisions.

Mr. Dalyell: They are.

Dr. Hampson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the seven surviving boards cope with the vast bulk of those that were covered by the ITBs?

Mr. Alison: I gave that figure in my last speech on the matter. I should have to look it up to be absolutely accurate. Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to check the figure from my speech on 14 June. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will provide that information in his winding-up speech.

Mr. Dalyell: That is ignorant and shameful.

Mr. Alison: I shall turn to a different industry within the scope of the ceramics board. I should like also to describe the training proposals advanced by the glass industry. The Glass Manufacturers Federation has set up a limited company called Glass Training. There is a tripartite central body, the joint glass training council, with places for seven trade unionists and five educationists, and five tripartite sectorial committees. I should add that, only one of the trade unionists has so far taken part in the council, but it is hoped that the rest will do so shortly. Every employer in the glass industry has given his support to the proposals. Up to seven staff are to be appointed, and other services will be brought in.
The right hon. Member for Doncaster criticised the training arrangements that are being set up to replace the distributive ITB. Perhaps I might draw attention to some of the comments that the MSC made about the board in "A Framework for the Future".
Employers are involved in a wide range of disparate activities … Moreover the types of organisation running these activities are much more varied than in most sectors covered by statutory boards … Typically they rely on entrepreneurial flair and self-help for success and are hostile to the idea of cooperating in statutory training arrangements which may offer advantages to rival firms … The Board's exclusion level for levy of 10 employees removes from levy liability 96 per cent. of all firms in scope and a third of all in-scope employment … For several years after the Board was established in 1968 it faced serious difficulties in developing a coherent training strategy … The Board's lack of influence over its industry and its inability to make effective use of its statutory powers in the early years led the Commission to consider the possibility of recommending its abolition.
I could continue in that vein for some time. I wish only to make the point that the Opposition must not pretend that the distributive ITB was a howling success. Indeed, we have concluded that it was probably a mistake to have a statutory training board for the distributive industry. The board has done some useful 'work, especially on vocational preparation, but that does not warrant keeping a body with no fewer than 470 staff on a statutory basis. The voluntary arrangements that the right hon. Gentleman derided at least have the support of the various parts of the industry. That will be a major advance on what has gone before.
The non-statutory training arrangements that are to replace the food, drink and tobacco ITB have been the subject of vigorous criticism led, as I see it, by vested interests within the present training set-up. The critics have failed to mention that this board has, on its own criteria, largely achieved its main task. Firms covering no less than 95 per cent. of the work force are exempt from levy because they train to the board's standards. Almost all of the employer organisations concerned have told us that they think that the board has outlived its usefulness. It must also be added that the MSC's assessment was that


the board's achievements have been relatively modest, largely because the industries within scope face few serious training problems.

Mr. Harold Walker: Before the right hon. Gentleman moves on from discussing the distributive ITB, will he comment on the fear that an audio-visual centre at Knutsford is being turned over to porn film making?

Mr. Alison: I shall not give the right hon. Gentleman an off-the-cuff answer to his porn allegations. I must be careful of what I say, but he produced that allegation like a rabbit out of a hat. I hope that that is an innocuous description. My hon. Friend will want to consider that matter carefully. He will say something about it in his winding-up speech.
Even on the strict criteria adopted by the director of the board, the training proposals for the brewing, food manufacturing, cocoa, chocolate and confectionery, cake and biscuit, dairy trade and fresh produce industries are, and I quote from the MSC's assessment, "worthwhile". Having been given that accolade, they must indeed be good. The arrangements cover more than half of the employees in scope to the board. There are other proposed training arrangements that are adequate or more than adequate. However, I regret that time will stop me, as it did the right hon. Member for Doncaster, from going into any detail about the other boards that are covered by the orders that we are debating. My hon. Friend will be happy to cover in his winding-up speech points that are raised in the debate.
The House has already rejected prayers against orders to wind up eight statutory boards. The orders that we are considering tonight cover six boards where the case for abolition is, in our view, at least as strong. I therefore urge the House to reject the Opposition's prayer.

Mr. Ken Eastham: I begin by taking up some of the Minister's rather cheap comments about the Labour Government's unemployment record. He had the temerity to compare this Government's performance—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I allowed the Minister to reply to the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker), but we must concentrate on industrial training and not debate unemployment.

Mr. Eastham: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Nevertheless, as that is on record, it is worth reminding the House in passing that when the Conservative Party fought the last election it spent thousands of pounds on Saatchi & Saatchi and used the slogan "Labour isn't working". It would bring tears of joy to the Government's eyes if they could reduce the unemployment figures to those that they inherited from the Labour Government. The Conservatives promised something different and it certainly is different—it is far worse than what they promised the electorate.
The theme that now seems to be percolating through industry is "There is no need to train. Instead, we can poach". The Minister deludes himself when he quotes letters from industrialists who say that they know how to train best. I remind the House that previous Conservative Governments recognised that industrialists were not

training people for their own industries. That is why in 1964 a Conservative Government recognised the wisdom of industrial training. The Minister talks about breaking the mould, but the Government seem to have taken years to discover that earlier Conservative Governments were right and they are wrong. I have more confidence in the industrial training policy of previous, "reactionary" Tory Governments than in the present Government's policies.
We are witnessing the continuing dismantling of training and the assets are being given away. This form of asset-stripping is a new dimension. The Government justify that by saying that training will continue. If a future Labour Government decided to nationalise, would the Conservatives justify such action by saying "We are having a handout" or would they accuse Labour of taking away valuable assets? In this instance, the Government are justifying a free gift of equipment with a high commercial and monetary value.
The Government are full of contradictions about training. They are like Jekyll and Hyde, constantly contradicting themselves. One minute they say that they favour training and the next minute they dismantle it. We are debating the dismantling and closing of certain industrial training boards, yet the Government speak about new training initiatives. We have seen the closure of vital areas of training and reference has been made to the food and retail industries, which are so often neglected. Many parts of the country place great importance on the food industry, retailing and distribution, because it is important to tourism. If tourism is to expand, the quality of catering, food and distribution is important. It is part of the big sell and it is one of the very things quoted in brochures.
Earlier today I attended two meetings in our Committee Rooms. The first was with the Manpower Services Commission. The new training initiatives were discussed and we were told what was needed—more training—and what we should be doing and what the MSC intends to do. The second meeting was with representatives of the petrochemical industry, who spoke about what the Government are not providing. We were told that, although we are now the sixth largest oil producer, two-thirds of the oil is being exported for processing. That has had an effect on the chemicals and plastics industries—areas over which the industrial training boards are ceasing to have control.
I remind the House that 25 per cent. of plastics from the oil industry are supplied to the car industry, the food and drink industry, to the detergent makers and to export markets. However, the Government appear to be pandering to the multinational companies, and our valuable asset of oil is being exported to be processed—processes that we can more than adequately provide here.
There is bound to be a price to pay, and we have seen that with the appalling rate of unemployment. There will be reduced training. We should not kid ourselves that the industrialists will spend a great deal of money on training young people. In the past they have poached from one another. Rather than pay for the development and training of their own staff, companies entice skilled employees from neighbouring firms. Consequently there is a gradual diminution of the very skills that are needed for the future of the industry.
There will be reduced opportunities. We are to have a complete reversal of what was conceived even by previous


Tory Governments. The Minister says that they now intend to break the mould. When we break the mould we shall break the back of industry in Britain.
I predict that it will not be long—another three or four years—before it is recognised, even by the Government, that industrial training on a voluntary basis without organisation will be a failure, at a dramatic cost to the nation. The Government will come back to the House expecting the taxpayers again to foot the bill after having virtually given away the assets to their friends. That will not benefit industry and it will certainly not benefit Britain.

Mr. Jim Lester: I hope that the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) will forgive me if I do not follow his speech. I promised to make a short speech and I want to have a valedictory word before the training boards are finally wound up.
I also apologise to the House and to whoever speaks after me because, as I have guests in the Gallery who have listened to the whole debate—that is a tremendous burden for them to bear—I intend to take them out for a drink as soon as I have finished my speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he should not refer to people in the Gallery.

Mr. Lester: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I first acknowledge the painstaking work of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. We recognise the seriousness and the intent with which he has taken on the task of pushing and prodding the present package into shape. It has not been an easy task and it could not have been undertaken at a more difficult time, when the principle has been established that "If it costs anything, we don't want it". It is hard to reconcile that with the criteria laid down by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I think that the Under-Secretary has done a worthwhile job and deserves the support of all Conservative hon. Members.
I pay tribute to the work and dedication of many of those involved in the statutory boards that are now being wound up. We do not live in a black and white world and, although the framework might have been questionable in some of the boards, many individuals, whether they worked professionally or gave their time from industry or the trade unions, have made a contribution towards establishing better standards and a real appreciation in industry that training does not exist for training's sake. They have etablished the fact that training exists to maximise the personal contribution of a work force and that it is as vital to our economic success as high investment or skilled marketing. It is understandable that many people are sorry to see the end of the training boards which, for the best of motives, they spent years creating.
I still do not believe that British industry is sufficiently conscious of the critical importance of training, at least up to the standards of our major competitors. Far too many people still believe that, like Topsy, our industry can grow into proficiency. Far too many people have never had a chance of finding out what they are best equipped to do. There is still a deep-seated attitude that, when things get tough, the first things that are cut are research, development and training. That attitude has been underlined in the past few years.
The Government should not need to act as a nanny to industry or provide the pressure and finance to ensure that

it trains. However, I cannot envisage the time when they will not have to. Many companies and organisations are superb trainers, and they are only too aware of poaching. We should not judge our success by the superb trainers, but by the medium and lowest levels that we have tried to protect by statute. There is still a long way to go in those areas.
It is also a mistake to treat this debate as an argument between voluntary and statutory. We should consider what is best for our industry, sector by sector. Most of us now look forward to the enormous boost to good training as a result of the youth training scheme. I particularly hope that the new local organisations will combine all the talents in a community.

Mr. John Grant: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's point about the need for voluntary and statutory arrangements. Is he aware of any area in 'which the Government are considering an extension of the statutory arrangements? All that we hear about is the cutting of the statutory arrangements. Is there any possibility of extending them into the difficult areas about which the hon. Gentleman is talking?

Mr. Lester: When my right hon. Friend originally introduced these orders, he made it very clear that he was retaining the power to create statutory boards should that be necessary and should the voluntary experiment be unsuccessful.
When I visited America two years ago, I made the acquaintance of Governor du Pont of Delaware, who is particularly interested in introducing young people to the world of work. Governor du Pont recently visited Britain, and I had what was perhaps the last word with him before his return to America. He was presumably shown the best that we can do, and his last comment to me on the Terrace was "It is incredible. The factory I have visited is training bright young minds on old machines".
Tonight, some new fledglings will emerge—100 has been suggested—as a result of the abolition of the six industrial training boards. Conservative Members wish them well. In sp to of my right hon. Friend's efforts, I would be less than honest if I did not say that some of them appear to be short of feathers. Indeed, some of them appear to be short of wings. I hope that each industrial sector will now come alive and recognise the needs that go wider than its own demands and interests.
The Government cannot back off. They must closely monitor the unfolding pattern. They must continue to prod and push and prevent serious breaches until we have a coherent pattern of training that meets our needs.

Mr. Cyril Smith: It is most appropriate that the hon. Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester) should take part in the debate. I suppose that he was in the first hearse at the funeral which set off the abolition of the training boards, and tonight we are simply having an obituary over the rest of the funeral cortege which led.
As the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) said earlier, many of the arguments on the subject have already been rehearsed. I regret that tonight we have yet another period in the history of the House when we have to preside over the destruction—I use the word deliberately—of some first-class training boards.
If teenagers or children did what the Government are doing to the training boards they would be accused of


vandalism and brought before the juvenile court. The Government's actions are not only ill-conceived but ill-timed. I cannot think of a worse time to introduce orders and policies abolishing training boards than when we have rising unemployment. Today the unemployment figures have been announced as being well over 3 million and still climbing, yet on that same day the Government announce the abolition of more training boards. It is sheer lunancy.
One of the boards that we are to abolish this evening is the cotton and allied textiles board. I read the comments about the board made by the Minister of State in the debate on 14 June. He said that the textile industry was a declining industry, so that there was less need for training, and so on. It may be declining but it is still a major industry, and the need for training in the industry still remains. The abolition of the board overlooks not only the function of the board in terms of training for skills; it overlooks the fact that the small firms' council of the board has done a great deal for small industries in the North-West in particular and in the country in general.
We are also to abolish this evening the food, drink and tobacco board. I thought that the Minister's attack on that board was uncalled for and unfair. The video centre to which the right hon. Member for Doncaster referred is one that I have visited. I was deeply impressed with its work and with the type of film that it was producing and the purpose for which the films were being used. I sat and watched many of them being relayed and displayed. It is a pity that that type of facility is being destroyed. I hope that the Minister, in his reply, will be able to allay many of our fears about that type of establishment.

Mr. Michael Shersby: I am paying close attention to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Could he inform the House which areas covered by the food, drink and tobacco board are not able to provide adequate voluntary training arrangements to replace those previously provided? Could he give the House chapter and verse on that subject? It is very important.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman may have more knowledge of the industries than I have but it is not always a question whether they have the facilities to provide the training. Are they prepared to provide the facilities that they have the ability to provide?
The distributive industry is particularly concerned with a large number of small businesses—corner shops, small butchers' shop employing one or two people, and so on. The need for collective effort in training and the need for statutory back-up to that type of training is far more important in that type of industry than in many of the larger industries in which industrial training boards are being retained. The training in those industries would probably have continued anyway, bearing in mind the size of the companies involved in the general training facilities.

Mr. Golding: If the hon. Gentleman had received a brief from the food, drink and tobacco board his answer to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) would have been "Agricultural supplies, to begin with, followed by flour and bakery." He could have continued the list. Sector after sector is not adequately catered for under the new arrangements.

Mr. Smith: The tragedy of tonight's debate is that we are destroying organisations, dissipating expertise and

sacking personnel. However arrangements may be reorganised, the fact remains that these training facilities, which have been developed and brought together over many years, are suddenly being destroyed by legislation. Although some boards are being retained, most of them will be vandalised.

Mr. Peter Morrison: Like the hon. Gentleman, I am very interested in small businesses, and I listened carefully to what he said. The exclusion level for the food, drink and tobacco board is less than £170,000 over emoluments. The exclusion level is less than £30,000 for the distributive training board over emoluments or less than 10 employees. Two or three-shop businesses and small companies are not liable.

Mr. Smith: The question is not who is paying the levy but who will benefit from training facilities. Will those who have benefited from the training arrangements continue to benefit now that training arrangements are to be on a different basis? Will the facilities be used now that they are on a back-up voluntary basis and not backed up by statute? That is what worries many of us about the new proposals. However, we cannot do much to stop the destruction that is taking place.
I hope that the Minister will examine closely the disposal of some of the assets that is taking place, especially in the form of redundancy payments. This weekend I heard of redundancy payments in five figures for people with fewer than 12 years' service. The first of those five figure sums was neither 1 nor 2. Such a level of redundancy payment is ridiculous and an abuse of the use of assets that have been accumulated. I am not referring to one of the boards that is the subject of debate, although it has been referred to by some hon. Members. The Minister should examine the scale of redundancy payments.
Even at this late hour, I hope that whoever will take over responsibility for training, the Government and the MSC who together will monitor the new arrangements will try to ensure that the expertise and experience that have been developed over many years will be built into the new scheme so that they are not wasted.
I hope also that money that is to be made available for training by the Government will not be made available exclusively to the remaining boards or to the MSC. Many of us do not consider that the Manpower Services Commission is God's gift to anything, and certainly not to training. There is a great deal of expertise available to the Government and to new boards outside the MSC and I hope that funding will not be exclusive.
The Under-Secretary of State has referred in an intervention to exclusion figures on levies. I ask him to consider the possibility of excluding trainees from the gross wages which are taken into consideration. I have a small company in Rochdale with five employees. It was excluded from the levy because the total gross of wages was not high enough to bring it within the levy. It was then decided to take on an apprentice. The apprentice's wages pushed up the wages bill and made the company liable to the levy. The company is paying the levy for the privilege of taking on an apprentice and training him. There may be some merit in excluding the first two years of apprenticeship, for example, from the total wages bill in determining the gross wage bill and the triggering of the training levy. I hope that the Minister will consider that suggestion.

Mr. Peter Morrison: The levy exclusion level is basically a matter for the board. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman raises the issue with the chairman of the board, or through me, the issue will be considered with care.

Mr. Smith: The Government have said a great deal over the years about their allegiance to, and respect for, small businesses. They have expressed their desire to see small businesses flourish. However, through their policy towards training boards they have placed a greater financial burden on training and have taken from themselves some of the money that they were spending on training. That seems to be incompatible with the views that they have expressed in the past about their support for small businesses.
This is a bad night for Britain's future. Its investment in the future will determine its future. There is no better way for a nation to invest in its future than in training people of all ages, but especially young people. It is vital to train, to retrain, to provide skills and to provide the opportunity to be educated in a wider sphere than the normal school system can offer. I believe sincerely that the consequences of abolishing the boards will mean that fewer people will be trained and that fewer opportunities for training will be available.

Mr. Michael Shersby: First, I wish to declare an outside interest. I am the Secretary of the United Kingdom Sugar Industry Association, which now has responsibility for voluntary training arrangements in the sugar industry. I am also a member of the Food and Drink Industries Council. It may be that I am the only Member of this place who has some responsibility for voluntary training arrangements in one of Britain's important industries.
I shall contribute briefly to this important debate. It is vital that we understand the extent to which voluntary training arrangements have been adopted over a wide sector. They are now receiving the enthusiastic support of many in industry and commerce.
I shall direct my remarks towards the abolition of the food and drink industries training board, which has responsibility for a number of important sectors of the food and drink industries. I support the order to abolish the board because I believe that there is little evidence to suggest that its continuation will be cost-effective, funded either from central Government or from employers.
I should like to say a word about the way in which the board hoped to influence training. The board was established in 1968 with the aim of helping the industry to achieve increasingly effective use of manpower through improved training. The main method by which the board hoped to influence training in companies was through its levy exemption programme. The levy exemption system gave the board a statutory right to visit and collect data from companies. That is the basis on which that board and others existed.
The board had a major limiting factor in that companies in the scope of the board represented only 75 per cent. of employees in the sector and less than 10 per cent. of employers. The influence of the board was therefore restricted to large companies. In 1970 an estimated 40 per cent. of leviable firms gained exemption and by 1980–81 this had risen to 91·1 per cent., covering 97·9 per cent. of employees in its scope.
I mention those figures because they give a good illustration of the effectiveness of the board and its relationship with the food and drink industry. It is fair to say that, through what I should describe as the stick and carrot approach of the levy scheme, the board had intended to extend its influence about as far as was possible. The food, drink and tobacco industry training board expenditure in 1980–81 was £2·95 million. Only £0·5 million of that income was raised by levy through companies, and the balance was provided by the training services division of the Manpower Services Commission. The board also provided training services, but had the problem of having to persuade companies to use its services against the background of statutory intervention.
The question of voluntary training arrangements is an important one. The food, drink and tobacco industry training board, for example, identified 13 sub-sectors of the industry covering primary and secondary processing, agriculture supplies and retailing. From such a diverse industry it is not surprising that there should be a variety of voluntary training arrangements. The arrangements are all based on existing trade associations which already enjoy the support of the majority of companies within their sectors. In many cases, training was already an established function of the trade associations and the addition of this formal co-ordination role is natural.
I make this point because it is vitally important for the House to understand that the trade associations in an industry such as food and drink have always taken a keen interest in training. They have always had on their special sub-committees the top training people from the companies in those industries. That continues to be the case now that we are moving away from statutory to voluntary arrangements.

Mr. Golding: What have been the previous arrangements in the National Association of Soft Drink Manufacturers, for example, or in the Institute of Meat, or the Food Manufacturers Federation? What have been the arrangements and what are the arrangements for the future?

Mr. Shersby: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because was about to illustrate my points. As he raised the question, I should like to give the House an example of some of the 13 voluntary schemes which have emerged since my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary took this initiative. For example, there is the Food Manufacturers Council for Industrial Training, which is the organisation that encompasses the Food Manufacturers Federation. There is the Brewers' Society, the United Kingdom Sugar Industry Association., the National Association of British and Irish Millers, the Dairy Federation, the Federation of Bakers, the Cocoa, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance and the Cake and Biscuit Alliance, the Institute of Meat, the United Kingdom Agricultural Supply Trade Association, the National Association of Master Bakers, Confectioners and Caterers, the National Association of Soft Drink Manufacturers, the National Institute of Fresh Produce and the Tobacco Industry Employers' Association. The hon. Gentleman's intervention could not have been more timely. I should like to expand on their work. That is the best way of answering the question that the hon. Gentleman has rightly raised.

Mr. Philip Holland: Can my hon. Friend give the assurance that none of the appointments to any of the bodies that he has listed will be made by the Minister?

Mr. Shersby: I can give my hon. Friend that categorical assurance. The appointment of persons who serve on training committees of these organisations is in the hands of people in the industries concerned. Those who will serve are experts in their subject. The advantage of training committees based on existing organisations is that the existing administrative resources of those associations can be deployed to maximum effect in addition to established training functions.
Hon. Members do not perhaps appreciate the extent to which trade associations in many industries—I can speak only about that which I know—have, over a long period, had committees comprised of people deeply involved in the training process. The food, drink and tobacco industry training board never trained anyone. Its role was to exercise influence, to have a levy system and to have a system of inspection that was in many ways valuable but which, I believe, is no longer necessary.
It has been amply demonstrated by events that the industries concerned are more than able to provide their own expertise and their own training committees free of charge. These voluntary organisations are highly effective and cheap. Any comparison between members of the staff of the food, drink and tobacco industry training board and staff employed in voluntary training arrangements is spurious.

Mr. Jim Craigen: Will the new training committee to which the hon. Gentleman refers carry out any training itself?

Mr. Shersby: From my own personal experience and knowledge, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the various trade associations in the food industry—I am not speaking for the other industries covered by these revocation orders—carry out training of the highest possible quality. The training is properly funded. Those involved in the training have long experience and consult closely with the trade unions, with the world of education and with all who work in their industries. They are capable of giving the finest training that any industry desires.
I take the example of the sugar industry because I happen to know it. The sugar industry spent £2·9 million in 1981 on training 8,700 employees. That is nothing new. The industry has for many years spent large sums on training its employees—long before the food, drink and tobacco industry training board was thought of.

Mr. Golding: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the question about soft drinks and meat. Can he say what committees have existed in the past in the soft drinks industry? What resources are now available in that industry for the future?

Mr. Shersby: I have already told the hon. Gentleman that the National Association of Soft Drink Manufacturers has set up training arrangements approved by the Under-Secretary and his colleagues at the Department of Employment. The hon. Gentleman asked me about meat. I made it clear in my earlier remarks that the Institute of Meat had also set up its own training facilities. I am genuinely trying to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. Training in those industries has been taking place in one form or another for a number of years.
I believe that the winding up of the board coupled with the initiatives that have been taken by the Under-Secretary have resulted in some industries—I cannot speak for the ones that the hon. Gentleman raised—in even greater initiatives towards training arrangements than in the past. The vast majority of the sectors of the food and drink industry are now covered by perfectly adequate and excellent training arrangements. They are funded by industries through their trade associations in such a way that training is being carried out of a type that could never have been provided by the food, drink and tobacco board. I believe that the House should now say to the industry "Right, you have put forward to the Department of Employment schemes which the Department, after careful consideration, has approved. You are now on your honour to carry out the proper training of employees within your industry". I believe that that will happen and that the fears expressed by the hon. Gentleman are groundless.
I believe that the industries covered by these revocation orders have gone to immense lengths to ensure that Parliament can be satisfied that the work that they will carry out in training employees will be such that there is the dynamism and the definite intention to train people to the high standards demanded by the industry and the country. I believe that the fears that have been expressed, that training is being abandoned and that the abolition of the boards will mean that training will fizzle out in some way, are groundless. In the food and other industries training today is a top priority. We all recognise that well-trained employees are every industry's best possible investment.
I am confident that the orders, which I am sure will be approved tonight, will be a spur to voluntary training and that the House will have cause to be proud of what has been done.

Mr. Jim Craigen: The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) has sugared the pill so well that I am surprised that we need a revocation order for the food, drink and tobacco industry training board. I should have thought that it had been killed off by kindness.
I should like to take up a point that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) made earlier. It seems to me that the Government are more prepared to put people out of work and pay towards their redundancy than they are to pay towards keeping them in work and for better training. It is symptomatic of the time that the Government are prepared to pay money for negative purposes rather than to deploy limited resources in more positive ways. The Minister said in his opening statement that this debate in a way is a retread. It is not enough for the Government, each time we have these orders and employment debates, to talk about the previous Labour Government. After three years in office, they must tell us how they are husbanding the nation's resources and accounting for their stewardship. The Minister should have spent more time on the Government's responsibility and their ideas for the future.
Will we have enough inspectors to monitor the multitude of voluntary bodies? The mind boggles at the number of MSC officials who will be required to ensure that proper training is carried out. At a time when the Government are cutting the size of the wages inspectorate


and the health and safety inspectorate, are we expected to believe that there will be enough MSC officials with adequate qualifications to assess the standard of training?
Despite the work that is going on to set up a new retail trades' training council, the Minister skidded over the fact that the distribution industry is one of the key industries of our economy. I sometimes think that its efficiency lends itself to a high volume of imports. About 2·8 million people are employed in the industries covered by the existing training board. The Minister ought to be aware of the importance of that industry to school leavers, because about one-fifth of each year's school leavers take jobs in the distribution industry.
Moreover, when profit margins in distributive industries are down to about 1½ per cent., can we really expect an upsurge in voluntary training? All too often, training is one of the first things to go when firms look for ways to reduce overheads.

Mr. Richard Needham: Would the hon. Gentleman wish to introduce a statutory training levy, which would take away even the 1½ per cent. profit margin and leave the industry with no profits?

Mr. Craigen: We already have a statutory system in the industry. If we are to move away from the traditional method of statutory surveillance to a voluntary system we must be sure that firms will provide the training. The general point that I am making, and I think that the hon. Gentleman would accept it, is that training is too often seen as something which can be easily discarded.
There is considerable uncertainty over Motec at Livingston. That training centre has excellent facilities and is one of two in Britain. The Select Committee on Employment visited it more than a year ago, yet, after all that time, there is still considerable uncertainty.
The Government are moving towards the setting of standards for apprenticeships by 1985, but it should be made clear to us whether the standards will stay in the hands of the remaining training boards. I understand that the engineering industry training board has made it clear that, if there is to be a one-year exemption for young people on the new training initiative scheme, the standards will be laid down by the engineering industry training board and not by the new youth training board or any of the 50 or 60 local boards that are to be set up under the youth training scheme.
I wonder what the Minister thinks will happen in sectors of industry which have no industrial training boards to set the standards. Are we simply to rely on the more traditional mechanisms that the Government themselves say are unsatisfactory, because the Government have said in various publications that we should move standards being set by unions and employers?

Mr. George Park: Will my hon. Friend consider for a moment the problem of trainees? How can they convince potential employers that they have reached a certain competence and skill that can be built on?

Mr. Craigen: I understand that a certificate will be given at the end of the 12-month youth training scheme. There should be a sufficient training content in the 12-month scheme if it is to be acceptable to the industry—and in the case that I instanced, to the

engineering industry training board, and there will have to be some mechanism in the sectors of industry which have no ITBs.
I turn to a problem which arises too often for comfort in discussions about the youth training scheme. It is thought that somehow or other the scheme will fill a vacuum, but in my view that vacuum can be filled only by adequate training. In essence, the youth training scheme will be only a pre-vocational 12-month course. There will be more problems when the Government get round, as they will, to deciding about adult entry and training courses. Today's unemployment figures are staggering, and over the past 10 years we have lost in manual employment over 3 million jobs. Non-manual employment is now overtaking manual employment. The labour market has dropped by 8 per cent. since this Government came to office in 1979, and there is now a large reservoir of unskilled and semi-skilled people who have not only gone on to the unemployment register but have stayed there. They form a large part of the long-term unemployed. More wll have to be done by way of training to dislodge those people from long-term unemployment, and I hope that there will be a larger training element in the community enterprise programmes.
What was said earlier about training awards and the EITB and the CITB was important. Many small firms may be disinclined to take on young people for permanent employment, as opposed to temporary engagement through the youth training programme. The Government should provide some form of back-up for the employment of young people because, despite the encouraging noises that we hear about higher productivity, the fact remains that higher productivity will result in fewer employees. Although many hon. Members do not have the power of vision to see an economic upturn under this Government, if there is one, it will simply result in the absorption of more imports, despite higher productivity.
The Minister may regret that this is a retread of our previous debate, but the Government have still not addressed themselves to the training requirements that will be necessary to cope with a vastly changed labour situation for the remainder of the decade.

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) has, by his speech, shown clearly that he does not fully understand the true position, certainly within the distributive industries.
The companies in the distributive industries which do the bulk of the training are exempt from the distributive industries training board provision. That has been the case for a long time. The hon. Gentleman must realise that companies such as Marks and Spencer and J. Sainsbury do not come under the board in any real way. Training within the distributive industries has long been carried out, quite properly, by the people who know the best way to do it—the employers.
There are only two parts to any business. The first is money and the other is people. Money covers the plait, equipment, stock, buildings and all the other things to do with finance. The second, the people, are in my view the more important part of a company. It is how people are motivated and trained that determines how a company, or indeed a country, Performs in the market place.
The questions that everyone must ask are whether training in the United Kingdom has made Britain more


competitive. Has it produced the numbers of trained individuals that industry requires? Is industry happy with the statutory board?
Anyone who has been involved in discussions within industry must acknowledge that confidence in many of the boards was absent. In some cases, the optimism of the early and mid-1960s was replaced by open hostility to those boards.
I wish to place on record my appreciation of the time and energy given to the industrial training boards during the early years by trade unionists, educationists and employers. I was involved in the early stages of the distributive industries training board. I remember our optimism in those early days.
One realised quickly over the years that firms such as Marks and Spencer, the companies that I run and others were excluded from the distributive industry training board in every respect because they did more than the board required. They did that, not because anybody else determined the needs, but because the market place laid upon the companies a need to ensure that they were more efficient and effective than their competitors. Therefore, I believe that the voluntary approach will produce the results that we are all looking for.
Group training schemes—again I was personally involved—were marvellous in their early days. Firms and companies were brought together in joint enterprises in their areas. That continues because those same organisations recognise that with or without boards there are advantages to them in co-operating at that level.
The important points are who determines what the training needs are and who will do the training. That can best be judged by those who face the competition in the market place. I am sure that I speak for many when I say that there has been an increasing acceptance that several of the boards have outlived their usefulness and that once again it was time to move into a new stage in the development of training in the United Kingdom.
It was a Conservative Government who introduced legislation setting up the boards in 1964. A Conservative Government carried out a reorganisation in 1973 and a Tory Government are again doing something about training. Opposition Members talk a lot about training, but they do nothing when in office. That is most enlightening and interesting.
Again, a Conservative Government are setting up the new training initiative and, in such difficult times, are taking the opportunity to do something that should have been done many years ago. This change is long overdue. I welcome it, because this Government will be remembered for facing up to the issues of the day. It will be remembered not for fudging, ducking or looking for soft options, but for acting. The Government recognise that they must invest in people. That does not mean throwing money at problems. That has never solved anything. Indeed, it normally has the opposite effect of creating bigger and worse problems.
I have some experience of the distributive trades and of the furniture and timber industry. I am quite satisfied that the Retail Consortium and one of my old employers, the National Association of Retail Furnishers, are perfectly adequately equipped to cope with the training needs of their section of the industry. I am sure that the British Furniture Manufacturers Association can also meet the

needs of its industry's requirements. However, that does not mean that individual companies will not have to face up to their problems. There is no doubt that there will be different training requirements in each area. Again, that is where the voluntary approach should be helpful.
We must adapt to change if we are to survive. Everyone has an interest in survival. More important, we must train our young people for the real world—the world of today and tomorrow. The new training initiative will lay the basis for the vocational training that is called for. I look forward to its follow up, when apprenticeships will no longer be determined by time alone, but by skill as well. I believe that that sentiment finds its expression on both sides of the House. It has been difficult to get organised labour to accept that. However, I am delighted that there is much more acceptance within organised labour that that is the way ahead. That acceptance is to be preferred to the historical craft tradition of saying that an apprenticeship must last X number of years.
I welcome the changes in further education, which will also help. I also welcome the fact that through the new training initiative we shall continue to involve educationists in vocational training in contrast to the enormous growth in non-vocational training in the past 20 years. That non-vocational training is interesting, but does little to help equip people for the real world. We have a duty and a responsibility to ensure that we are equipping our young for the world in which they hope to earn a living and to acquire skills and knowledge. I hope that they will constantly chase the acquisition of skill and knowledge and that they will welcome change.
When people cease to welcome change and the knowledge and skills of the future they begin to move backwards. I am sorry to say that that has been the case. However, although I never thought in 1964 that I would welome the departure of training boards—in those early days we all saw them as a means of dramatic change—I now recognise that many of the boards have outlived their usefulness. When we set them up we recognised that they would have a limited lifespan, but we did not know whether it would be 20 or 50 years. In many instances under 20 years has proved to be about right.
I welcome the changes and, unlike some of the Opposition, I do not believe that the new arrangements will prove to be the end of training. There will merely be a change in the way in which training has evolved and I believe that that change is for the better.

Mr. John Grant: As the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) said, many companies in British industry are doing excellent training work, which is unprompted. I wish that I could share his confidence that the changes in the training structure that we are debating tonight will be beneficial to the whole of British industry.
As the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) said in his opening remarks, we have been here before, particularly when we discussed the previous batch of orders in mid-June. Only the names of the boards to be abolished have changed, but the unsatisfactory situation has not changed. It is unsatisfactory in practice and principle.
The idea of undermining our national training effort when we should be increasing it must be wrong. If today's catastrophic unemployment figures were surpassed in the


months ahead, and if the slump were to continue, which is likely to happen, the case for more training and improved skills would not be diminished. The need for that would be underlined. However, the Government do not think that the slump will continue. They tell us without much conviction but with much bluster that everything is coming right. If they are correct about that, we shall need a more highly skilled labour force than before if we are to cope with technological advance, avoid skill shortages at a time of what we hope will be economic expansion and avoid bottlenecks.
What has shone through the debate—the same applied to the previous debate on 14 June—has been the astonishing extent of ministerial complacency. In that debate, the Under-Secretary talked about minor changes in respect of the abolition of the boards. He brushed aside the views of the ITB chairmen and juggled with figures to try to prove the Government's commitment to training across the board, but failed to deal with the vital point that the trade unions are tending to boycott the voluntary arrangements because they would no longer share in the decision-making as equal partners. They would have solely an advisory role. They do not want that.
Today the Minister of State underlined the fact that the decision to wreck the training boards is based primarily on the desire of the Conservative Party to give a reward to the more short-sighted and reactionary of their industrial paymasters. That fact must be faced.
The Minister of State picked out the parts of the orders that he liked as evidence that all is going smoothly. Many questions can be raised. I shall raise a few. Some sectors propose to do nothing in response to the Minister's plea for voluntary arrangements. We have moved on to some extent, but we are not sure how far.
The MSC report on the transition from statutory to voluntary arrangements in March referred to the cotton and allied textiles industry. It said:
A considerable proportion of employees in ITB scope may not be covered by voluntary arrangements.
In the June document there is no mention of that. I should like to know whether a considerable proportion of employees in the cotton and allied textiles industry who were covered by the ITB arrangements will not be covered, whether the Minister is satisfied with that and whether that matches his criteria.
We have heard about the food, drink and tobacco industry. The Scotch Whisky Association had no plans for a joint effort previously. As far as I can see from the documents in the Library, the training is based on large companies. I wonder whether that meets the criteria laid down by the Under-Secretary of State. The same goes for the frozen food sector, which comes under that industrial training board. I was a little surprised to hear what the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) said about the meat industry. The up-to-date document suggests that most schemes have been agreed for the meat industry outside Scotland. Perhaps we have moved on in recent weeks.
That document says that for many industries, discussions on arrangements are continuing. We are told that for the cotton and allied textile industry, and others, arrangements are being set up. That applies in part to the furniture and timber industry, the paper and paper products industry and printing and publishing. Although we are not discussing them, they are also to be abolished.
It all seems to be a remarkably vague basis upon which to seek parliamentary approval. It is important to ask what

criteria the Minister has used to judge whether the voluntary arrangements are satisfactory before bringing the present arrangements to the House. The criteria that he gave in a letter to the Institute of Meat on 6 April was so loose as to be meaningless. It would hardly be surprising if, on that basis, some industries opted for schemes that demanded the minimum of input of resources and allowed for the maximum of window dressing.
Does the Minister believe that there is any viable way of ensuring that standards in those industries will be maintained? If so, how? How will he find out? What will the monitoring process be, apart from the do-it-yourself arrangements that will be on an industry-by-industry approach? There are anxieties that in the event some industries will not bother about them. If there is a real drop in training standards, how will the Minister discover it?
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) mentioned MSC resources. That was a pertinent point. It is important to ask how rigorous the Minister's testing of those industries' voluntary arrangements has been before presenting the present arrangements to the House. He must know that more than two-thirds of the schemes for the food, drink and tobacco industry lack integrated professional staff, in spite of what has been said. The matter seems to have been thrust along indecently. The Government have sent the message to industry "Do not worry, the Government have taken their decision and cosmetics are enough". In some cases, we are witnessing a cosmetic exercise.
On the evidence before us and on the evidence contained in the documents that the Minister placed in the Library, he should not pursue the arrangements, despite the Government's intentions. He could still defer them until after the recess. We might then have far clearer evidence of individual firms' commitments to fund voluntary arrangements. There seems to be a major shortfall there. He should warn those types of industries that the statutory arrangements could still remain if they do not pull their socks up. Good employers who have a genuine concern far training—they have been referred to today—would not be the least disturbed by such a move. But those who want to wriggle out as cheaply as they can would have to think again.
All hon. Members recognise that the House of Lords Select Committee on unemployment produced an important report. It stressed that some statutory framework for industrial training was necessary. It considered that now that the Government are reverting to voluntary training provision in the place of most ITBs
there is an immediate need for action to protect training in those areas where ITBs are being abolished and to develop it in those areas which the ITBs have never covered".
There is little if arty evidence the Government are taking care of that. The report continues:
Not only must training needs be met; the costs must also be spread among employers with whom the main responsibility lies. In addition, the taxpayers should contribute, to reflect the acute national interest and to recognise that the benefits of training accrue to employees as well as to employers".
The Select Committee was absolutely right. The Government should pay much more attention to what it said.
The same Select Committee referred to a remissible training levy. The Social Democrats strongly favour that. That prospect should have received full consideration. I know that the Under-Secretary said that the Government would consider it, but it should have been fully considered


before the present statutory framework was substantially abandoned. It should not have been examined afterwards, with all the dangers of leaving a huge vacuum.
Throughout this whole shoddy exercise, the Government have set their target and then made up the facts to enable them to get through. I do not know what the Minister is like when he is roused—we do not see him that way at the Dispatch Box—but if the Government are determined to go ahead and get rid of the boards he should have been banging some heads together and telling some of the industrial laggards reflected in the framework of the orders to go away and not come back until they could deliver viable and worthwhile arrangements. There is not adequate evidence that that is the case. I believe that the whole affair was preconceived and pre-ordained to go through with the minimum fuss, irrespective of the real training needs.
Incidentally, it is unfortunate that we shall be able only to vote against the abolition of six boards rather than the eight that the Government wish to abolish in this batch. That is because, rather than allow the Social Democratic Party to move the initiating motion against all eight orders, the official Opposition felt obliged to connive once again with the Government and to contrive to ensure that the debate was opened by the official Opposition in the way that it was. Presumably they decided that party gain should take precedence. That is just one more piece of evidence in the ever-growing file on the absurdity of the procedures of the House in general and the outdated and unrepresentative two-party carve-up in particular.
In conclusion, we know that the orders result from industrial dogmatism, but we do not know with any certainty what will be their overall long-term effect on industrial training in this country. I believe that the effect will be grave and that it will be bad for the nation. The Government have made no adequate attempt to measure what will happen to the requirement and supply of skilled labour in the industries concerned. There is great anxiety throughout much of British industry and on both sides of the House, as was clear in the two debates that we have had on orders of this kind. That anxiety arises from the knowledge that the Government have been prepared to gamble needlessly and recklessly in this crucial area of industrial policy. That is the charge against the Government and that is why the orders should be annulled.

Mr. Richard Needham: I shall be exceedingly brief. I wish to make just one point. The difference between the two sides is purely this. Can we trust employers to train people voluntarily, or must we tell them that they are not trusted and must be treated like children who need not only a carrot but a fairly substantial stick? The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) made the point when he said that at present the profits in the distributive industry are 1½ per cent.
I believe that nowadays—I agree that this was not true in the past—employers by and large want to train and to train well, because their work force is their most important capital asset. I do not believe that the amount of poaching that existed years ago can possibly happen today. Workpeople have pension rights, for instance, and they cannot simply be poached and taken away from good employers.
Therefore, it is worth testing the spread of arrangements provided by the Government's tripartite system of voluntary arrangements, statutory arrangements and the new training initiative. If, after a period, the voluntary arrangements are clearly not working in particular industries, it will be possible to reintroduce some form of statutory training arrangements. I believe that employers must be trusted. It is in their own financial interests to ensure that they train adequately. Conservative Members should certainly give them the chance to do so. For that reason, I support the Government's position.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Long after any events that may have taken place at Cheltenham in the recent past and long after any events that may have taken place in the bed chamber are forgotten, the consequences of what we do tonight will be with us.
It is profoundly depressing that throughout almost the whole of this debate and when my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) was speaking the Press Gallery was virtually empty. I sometimes wonder whether the Lobby correspondents think the same things are as important in the long term as do the rest of us.
I place on record that as regards Motec at Livingston I have had nothing but courtesy from the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison). I thank him for that courtesy. As a result of his intervention that training institute has had a year's reprieve. I thank him for that.
Having said that, there is now a greater uncertainty about grants and about incentives—but I shall not go into that for reasons of time. There is also the question that is common to a number of institutions—the sale of assets. I am told that there is now a real possibility of the sale of assets at Livingston, in West Lothian, and at High Ercall, in Shropshire, so that the road transport industry training board can raise the money to pay compensation to its employees who are to be paid off.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) eloquently made the point that we are not talking only about distribution of assets. We are talking about the dispersal of people in teams that have been built up over the years to train. In most cases, if not all, it is agreed by employers, by hon. Members who have taken an interest and by people such as Alec Kitson, who is on the road transport industry training board, that they do a very satisfactory job. There is no dispute about the quality of training that is given.
I shall limit myself to talking about an industry of which I have some knowledge because it is in my constituency. This point concerns not only Scotland, but the north of England, because 70 per cent. of youngsters come from the north of England. Small garages are not in a position to give the training that youngsters can get at Livingston. Small garages cannot afford a paint shop or the equipment that has been specially constructed at the Livingston centre for fault finding on the many different types of vehicles.
The dispersal of such assets—machinery and human—would be a complete tragedy. There is rising anger in an area where there is now 26 per cent. male unemployment. We have been through the whole trauma of the rundown to a dangerous extent of the once prosperous Leyland factory at Bathgate. I give warning that if there is any suggestion of asset stripping or the sale of valuable machinery at ridiculous prices I shall be running along yet again to the Public Accounts


Committee, as I did for Bathgate, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) well knows because he was on the Committee. An all-party PAC severely strictured in virulent language—at least for the PAC—the Department of Industry for what it had done to Leyland.
I should not like to see the Department of Employment criticised in that way. However, I give fair warning that if there is to be such asset stripping in the road transport industry training board Motec centre I shall go along to my hon. Friends on the PAC to persuade them, yet again, to look at these matters. It is a crying shame that the seed corn of this country—the training on which we depend for our bread and butter, which in the case of the road transport industry training board no one else can give—should be closed down for the sake of a mere pittance.
I promised to be brief, but the House will forgive me if I again ask how millions of pounds can be found to dispatch the task force to the South Atlantic when we cannot get the thousands of pounds that are necessary for our industrial future. It seems that our priorities are cockeyed.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I do not wish to follow the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) in his task force work. For the first time in 14 years, I do not have an interest to declare. The trade union that I had the privilege to represent has decided to go for divorce and, therefore, we are no longer together.
I should, however, like to comment on the decision to wind up the furniture and timber industry training board. I do not believe that the work that has so far been done gives the Minister the right to assume that all is satisfactory with the voluntary effort. The new arrangement in the furniture industry is a tripartite one between British Furniture Manufacturers, the Furniture, Timber and Allied Trades Union, and the educationists. They have agreed on the format, which is based on the 10 British Furniture Manufacturers' regions. I query whether that is right. It will do, because there is nothing in its place, but I am not sure whether the Minister has the right to discard what we now have on the basis of using what happens to be available. The BFM does not represent the whole industry by a long chalk.
The Minister must satisfy the House that the 10 BFM regions cover the entire furniture and timber industry. I am told that those regions intend to adopt the format of the Chiltern group in High Wycombe. That is an outstanding area. It is the obvious choice, because it is concentrated and cohesive, and has been for a long time. I understand that the voluntary arrangements there closely follow the training board principles. A levy is to be charged and a grant is to be given. I am told that the levy has been fixed at about £1·70 per head of those employed. I have no doubt that High Wycombe will do all that it can to make the system work. I believe that it will produce a good training strategy, but even that well-endowed area will have some difficulty maintaining its apprenticeship schemes.
The Ercol factory is the primary manufacturer in High Wycombe and provides about a third of the total number of apprentices trained. I doubt whether it will be able to maintain that record under the voluntary system. There is

no doubt that Ercol will continue to train, but my concern is whether the rest of the industry will play its part under the voluntary system.
The best the MSC could do was to undertake to pay the funds for the rest of the year. When that money runs out, I believe that the momentum will drop and that the steam will run out of the system. The Minister is therefore taking an enormous risk by getting rid of the statutory system before he can possibly be satisfied that the new voluntary system can take up the slack. That is dealing with High Wycombe and I fondly believe that the people there will succeed, but what about the other nine regions? I have in mind London and, in particular, Hackney Road. If the House believes that the people there will do any training, it must be living in another world. The Minister should tell us what right he has to assert that the other nine regions will be able to emulate the Chiltern group. I do not believe that they will.
Before the Minister is willing to get rid of the present industrial training board, he should be certain in his mind that, in addition to the Chiltern group, the other nine regions will be able to do what is necessary. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that it will happen.
The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) said that since 1964 we have inculcated training into industry and that we should now let industry grow its own wings. I am in favour of that, provided that it has learnt to fly. I do not think that the people in the furniture industry have learnt to fly. The industrial training board for the industry has worked very hard. I pay great tribute to the chairman, Mr. Burton, and to the secretary, Mr. Jim Sadler, who have endeavoured to bring the furniture industry to a very high standard. The industry has weathered the economic storms over the past three years much better because of the board, and not in spite of it.
I hope that the Minister, before he takes his final decision tonight, will tell me why he believes that the proposed system will be satisfactory. I ask him to give his absolute assurance that the 10 regions will be able to plan the training strategy for the industry as a whole—those outside the BFM as well as those inside it. If he is able to give me that assurance, will he then explain how he can control those who are outside? What opportunity will those in the industry outside the BFM have to take part in training procedures?
The industry is a cottage industry and it has had a tremendous beating. It suffers from foreign imports and from a wide range of problems. It is trying desperately hard to make its way forward, and it is entitled to know from the Minister that he will take proper precautions to ensure that, if the voluntary system does not work, the present system will be retained.

Mr. Barry Jones: The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) summed up our debate correctly when he said that this was a bad night for Britain's future, because there would be much less training. He was also right when he referred to the destruction by tonight's orders and by the previous orders of first-class training boards.
The House should pay tribute to those who have given a professional life to the training industry and who, as a result of tonight's orders and the previous orders, are now on the dole.
The Minister of State made a veiled attack on the food, drink and tobacco board. I thought that his remarks about vested interests were unjust. The highly esteemed director of the board, Mr. David Mitchell, who has eschewed political infighting, has written to the Under-Secretary of State saying:
Very shortly I shall be relinquishing my position as director of the … Board. Before I do so, I feel I must write to express formally my deep regret that so many shallow schemes should be found acceptable by the Government as alternatives to our Board, and that so little is being done to help the worthwhile non-statutory schemes develop.
A little further on he said:
The Trade Union and educational representatives on my Board would dispute the use of the term 'tripartite' in connection with the proposals you appear to be approving.
That able director has made other criticisms, namely, that the lack of independent monitoring of training will militate against any prospect of critical judgments on any individual employer's training methods.
Further, it is Mr. Mitchell's judgment, as well as that of the Opposition, that if some sectors in an industry merely set up a committee, those who have genuinely involved themselves in training at their own financial cost will speedily cease financially buttressing what is purposeful and professionally supervised training. Herein lies the core of our objections to proposals for training in an industry of more than 1·2 million employees. My hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) and Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) made these points in their succinct speeches.
The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) made a brief but impassioned speech about the furniture and timber board. The new proposals represent a pitiful picture for over 213,000 employees in that industry. In the Department's explanatory notes, reference is made to the national training executive post. The post was advertised by the British Furniture Manufacturers Association and I am informed that it is to be taken up by the association's existing deputy director. Those in the industry have cynically observed that no employee will have sole responsibility for national training policies. It is wrong of the Under-Secretary to permit such an arrangement to go forward.
As for the ceramics board, I put it to the Minister that it may be unwise for him to permit the asbestos and concrete industry to go out of the statutory system, given the increasing anxiety even about white asbestos and the fears that under a voluntary system the monitoring of training will decline, with inevitable consequences for health and safety training. The Minister should consider that small but important point.
Many right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the distributive industry. The Minister of State stabbed the board in the back, or at any rate he damned it with faint praise. The House should know that the industry employs well over 2½ million, many of whom are young and need training. On the eve of the winding up of the board, the Opposition say that the Government have behaved disgracefully. There have been no discussions with the trade unions; and no attempt has been made to ascertain the views of the further education colleges on the new arrangements. It appears to us that the Retail Consortium has been deliberately secretive about its plans. The Under-Secretary should tell the House what guarantees he has had

from the Retail Consortium because the Opposition suspect that he had to press it extremely hard to get any semblance of organisation for training before he issued the order. We suspect that the industry has given him the minimum of arrangements necessary to enable him to defend his actions in the House.
Further, the Minister has sanctioned the order without any mention of training by the numerous wholesaling bodies. The new training council takes the reins from a board which has ably distributed £10 million-worth of grants. How much pump priming will the new training council undertake itself? Summing up the proposals for this board, we say that the Minister has sanctioned a disgraceful shambles. With a vengeance, he is signalling a return to pre-1968 days when no formalised training to any standards whatever was ever taken within the huge distributive industry.
I fear that the valuable political and industrial consensus which the existing statutory system represents is to be broken up irrevocably and that the remaining statutory boards and their staffs, observing the destruction of their lesser fellows, will become increasingly demoralised. Across the nation we shall see a fragmentation of training effort. The 16 boards are to be replaced by 100 voluntary arrangements. They can be described as a plethora of employer-dominated committees deviod of teeth and meaningful sanctions. We fear that there will be large cuts in Britain's full-time supporting arrangements. From 800 officers in 16 boards in 1980 we shall have between 100 and 200 trainers in the ensuing voluntary organisations.
Britain is fighting for its economic life. The depression is deepening and unemployment is growing. The Opposition fear that ailing companies and profit-hungry employers will jettison voluntary training cash contributions at the first sign of approaching troubles. We think that Ministers have been taken for a ride. They know that if voluntarism fails the training industry will again be nationalised. The least that the Minister can do is to say that he will think again and present the House with better arrangements.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): I agree with the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones), my hon. Friend the Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester) and all those who have paid tributes to the boards' staff. I pay tribute also to the chairmen of the boards and to board members.
The difference between this debate and the previous debate on other boards is that we now have full agreement on the new training initiative and the youth training scheme. That was not so when we debated the first set of eight orders. All the parties involved, including Labour Members, the CBI, the TUC, voluntary organisations and the Manpower Services Commission, agree that the objectives of the new training initiative and the youth training scheme offer the best way ahead. As my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) said, it is against that backdrop that we should be considering the decisions that we are taking on the six boards.
The backcloth is a more flexible approach to training. A greater emphasis will be placed on standards than


hitherto. We are getting away from age barriers and time serving and in these respects there is a reasonable consensus throughout the House.
First, I shall take up the remarks of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). I shall refrain from saying too much about his speech because it was directed to a board that is not being discussed. I hope that he appreciates that I am aware of his great concern about Motec at Livingston. He has been to see me about the matter. As I have told him in the past, it is for the board to come to a decision. However, I listened carefully to the strong sentiments that he expressed about a training centre in his constituency, about which he feels strongly.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) was right to remind the House that Conservative Governments have been primarily responsible for legislation on training. It is therefore reasonable to ask why we are undoing in some instances what our predecessors did. There are four reasons behind the course we are pursuing. Like our predecessors in the 1960s and the 1970s, we want to look forward to the needs of the future. We do not want to look backwards.
Secondly, it is a fair comment that some of the decisions—not all of them—that we have taken are a compliment to the boards themselves. During their existence, they have managed to change attitudes towards training in their industries. Thirdly, the circumstances in which some boards were established have radically changed. Fourthly, about 50 per cent. of industry has operated under a non-statutory system and has survived perfectly well.
I have made it clear during the past year that the relationship between those sectors which are going from the statutory system to the non-statutory system and the Manpower Services Commission should be developed. I shall expect, so long as I am Minister, to keep in touch through that channel. I shall be monitoring the way ahead of voluntary training arrangements.
In the last three years, Ministers have received large volumes of correspondence about the ITBs. The great majority of opinion has been against the continuation of statutory boards. It is taking the argument too far to suggest that the Government are irrationally opposed to the continuation of the boards and irrationally biased against them. We are keeping seven of the 23 boards with over half the number of employees at present covered by statutory boards. This is either because employers want them or because they cannot at this stage envisage successful voluntary arrangements [Interruption.] Although the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip obviously does not wish me to answer the debate, his right hon. and hon. Friends will, I think, prefer that I do so. There have been certain accusations that I did not answer the first debate.
The right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) pointed out that the chairmen of all the boards had written to my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) when he was Secretary of State for Employment saying that they wished to see the statutory system retained. I am not surprised that they took that action. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept that they had a certain vested interest. There is nothing wrong in that. We should not necessarily disregard those who write with a vested interest. We did take into account the points made by the right hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Flint, East talked about union attitudes and participation in the boards, and the non-statutory arrangements to replace those boards.
A good deal has been said today about the Government and employer organisations ignoring union views. That criticism is very wide of the mark. My door is always open to trade union officials. I think that is fairly widely known. I have had over 140 meetings on statutory training boards during my 17 months as a Minister. Some union officials have taken part in delegations from ITBs to see me. Despite my never having turned down one trade union official, the number of meetings I have had with unions can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Very few unions seem to have wanted to take the trouble to put their views to me.
There has been further criticism that unions have not been sufficiently involved in planning alternative training arrangements. Both the MSC and I have laid great stress on this in our discussions with employer organisations. In virtually every case employer organisations have offered trade unions the opportunity to discuss future training arrangements.
Reference has also been made to whether sufficient resources are being made available for the non-statutory training arrangements. I do not think that that is comparing like with like. As the right hon. Member for Doncaster and the hon. Member for Flint, East realise, if one has levies and exemptions from levies a large bureaucracy is involved. That means that there are people who are not involved with the pure training aspect, but who do the paperwork necessary under the statutory system.
I turn to the boards that we are discussing tonight. The position in the shipbuilding board has changed radically. About 80 per cent. of the employees who are within the board's scope are part of British Shipbuilders, which has been created since the board came into existence. The right hon. Member for Doncaster referred to a training centre. A tripartite trust has been set up including unions, educationists and employers. It is intended that the training centre will be passed to that trust.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) referred, for understandable reasons as he lives close by, to the cotton and allied textiles board. Training has been carried out according to the board's standards by firms employing about 83 per cent. of those in scope to the board. As the hon. Member for Rochdale will appreciate, the number of those in scope to the board when it was first set up was 220,000. Due to the contraction in the industry, there are now fewer than 100,000 employees. That must make one ask whether the board should continue in existence, regardless of the current review.
The ceramics, glass and mineral products board was discussed at great length by my right hon. Friend, so do not intend to refer to it any further.

Mr. Golding: Has the Minister brought the letter that the Minister of State could not bring? Could he read the name and address and the companies concerned so that we can monitor future performance?

Mr. Morrison: The letter comes from the British Aggregate Construction Materials Industries. It was written by its director-general, Mr. Robert Phillipson, to my right hon. Friend on 7 July 1982.
I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) said about the food, drink and


tobacco board and I agree with him that there is no doubt that the voluntary arrangements are satisfactory. I have had conversations with the meat industry and there is no doubt that there too the arrangements are successful.
The distributive board's video centre, to which the right hon. Member for Doncaster referred, is a matter of discussion between myself and the chairman and director of the board. I wrote to them last week. No decisions have been taken, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am watching the matter carefully.
The review of training boards has gone on for about three years. The consultative process could not have been wider and decisions have not been taken lightly. Therefore, it must be right for the House to reject the Prayer.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 302.

Division No. 285]
[10.15 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Deakins, Eric


Adams, Allen
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Allaun, Frank
Dewar, Donald


Alton, David
Dixon, Donald


Anderson, Donald
Dobson, Frank


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dormand, Jack


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dubs, Alfred


Ashton, Joe
Duffy, A. E. P.


Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)
Dunnett, Jack


Bagier, Gordon AT.
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Eadie, Alex


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Eastham, Ken


Beith, A. J.
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Bidwell, Sydney
English, Michael


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Evans, John (Newton)


Bottomley, Rt Hon A. (M'b'ro)
Ewing, Harry


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Faulds, Andrew


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Field, Frank


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Fitch, Alan


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Flannery, Martin


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Buchan, Norman
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Forrester, John


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Foster, Derek


Campbell, Ian
Foulkes, George


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Canavan, Dennis
Freud, Clement


Cant, R. B.
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Carmichael, Neil
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
George, Bruce


Cartwright, John
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Ginsburg, David


Clarke, Thomas C'b'dge, A'rie
Golding, John


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Gourlay, Harry


Cohen, Stanley
Graham, Ted


Coleman, Donald
Grant, John (Islington C)


Conlan, Bernard
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Cook, Robin F.
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Cowans, Harry
Hardy, Peter


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Crawshaw, Richard
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Crowther, Stan
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Cryer, Bob
Heffer, Eric S.


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Dalyell, Tam
Home Robertson, John


Davidson, Arthur
Homewood, William


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Hooley, Frank


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Hoyle, Douglas





Huckfield, Les
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Richardson, Jo


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Janner, Hon Greville
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


John, Brynmor
Robertson, George


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Rooker, J. W.


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Roper, John


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Kerr, Russell
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Kilfedder, James A.
Rowlands, Ted


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Ryman, John


Lambie, David
Sever, John


Lamond, James
Sheerman, Barry


Leadbitter, Ted
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Leighton, Ronald
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Short, Mrs Renée


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Litherland, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Silverman, Julius


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Skinner, Dennis


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


McCartney, Hugh
Snape, Peter


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Soley, Clive


McElhone, Frank
Spearing, Nigel


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Spriggs, Leslie


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Stallard, A. W.


McKelvey, William
Steel, Rt Hon David


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


McMahon, Andrew
Stoddart, David


McNally, Thomas
Strang, Gavin


McWilliam, John
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Marks, Kenneth
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Tilley, John


Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)
Tinn, James


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Torney, Tom


Maxton, John
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Maynard, Miss Joan
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Meacher, Michael
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


Mikardo, Ian
Wainwright, R. (Colne V)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Watkins, David


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Weetch, Ken


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Welsh, Michael


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
White, Frank R.


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Whitehead, Phillip


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Whitlock, William


Newens, Stanley
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


O'Halloran, Michael
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)


O'Neill, Martin
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)


Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Park, George
Winnick, David


Parker, John
Woodall, Alec


Parry, Robert
Woolmer, Kenneth


Pavitt, Laurie
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Pendry, Tom
Wright, Sheila


Penhaligon, David
Young, David (Bolton E)


Pitt, William Henry



Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Prescott, John
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Mr. George Morton.


Race, Reg



Radice, Giles



NOES


Adley, Robert
Aspinwall, Jack


Aitken, Jonathan
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)


Alexander, Richard
Atkins, Rober (Preston N)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)


Ancram, Michael
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)


Arnold, Tom
Banks, Robert






Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bendall, Vivian
Forman, Nigel


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh


Best, Keith
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fry, Peter


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Blackburn, John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Blaker, Peter
Goodhew, Sir Victor


Body, Richard
Goodlad, Alastair


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gorst, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gow, Ian


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bowden, Andrew
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gray, Hamish


Braine, Sir Bernard
Greenway, Harry


Bright, Graham
Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)


Brinton, Tim
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Grist, Ian


Brooke, Hon Peter
Grylls, Michael


Brotherton, Michael
Gummer, John Selwyn


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Hamilton, Hon A.


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hampson, Dr Keith


Buck, Antony
Hannam, John


Budgen, Nick
Haselhurst, Alan


Bulmer, Esmond
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Burden, Sir Frederick
Hawkins, Sir Paul


Butcher, John
Hawksley, Warren


Butler, Hon Adam
Hayhoe, Barney


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Heddle, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Henderson, Barry


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Hill, James


Chapman, Sydney
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Churchill, W. S.
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Hooson, Tom


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hordern, Peter


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clegg, Sir Walter
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cope, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Corrie, John
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Costain, Sir Albert
Irvine, Bryant Godman


Cranborne, Viscount
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Critchley, Julian
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Crouch, David
Jessel, Toby


Dickens, Geoffrey
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dorrell, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Dover, Denshore
Kaberry, Sir Donald


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Durant, Tony
Kimball, Sir Marcus


Dykes, Hugh
King, Rt Hon Tom


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Knight, Mrs Jill


Eggar, Tim
Knox, David


Elliott, Sir William
Lamont, Norman


Eyre, Reginald
Lang, Ian


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Fairgrieve, Sir Russell
Latham, Michael


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Lawrence, Ivan


Farr, John
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Fell, Sir Anthony
Lee, John


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Question accordingly negatived.

Social Security

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Rossi): I beg to move,
That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 29th June, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: With this it is convenient for the House to discuss the following motions:
That the draft Child Benefit (Up-rating) Regulations 1982, which were laid before this House on 29th June, be approved.
That the draft Family Income Supplements (Computation) Regulations 1982, which were laid before this House on 29th June, be approved.
That the draft Pensioners' Lump Sum Payments Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 29th June, be approved.
That the draft Supplementary Benefit Up-rating Regulations 1982, which were laid before this House on 8th July, be approved.
That the draft Supplementary Benefit (Requirements and Resources) Amendment Regulations 1982, which were laid before this House on 8th July, be approved.

Mr. Rossi: As required by section 124 of the Social Security Act my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has also laid before the House the Government Actuary's report on the draft order which sets out the estimated effects on the income and outgo of the National Insurance fund.
The other affirmative motions linked with the draft order on the Order Paper are also concerned with the uprating of supplementary benefits, child benefit, one-parent benefit and family income supplement in November 1982; with the provision of this year's £10 Christmas bonus; and with amendments to the supplementary benefit requirement and resources regulations.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I should remind him that he will have to move the other motions formally at the end of the debate.

Mr. Rossi: I shall do that, Mr. Speaker. Though the package is substantial, the uprating provisions are relatively straightforward and in the main give effect to the proposals which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services announced to the House on 10 March.
The main proposals were discussed at length in the debates on the Budget which followed my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's statement and in subsequent debates on the Social Security and Housing Benefits Bill and various stages of the Finance Bill, so the orders and regulations now before the House contain few, if any, surprises and hon. Members will be familiar with the main features and the arguments for them. Similarly, the substance of the main proposals in the draft supplementary benefit requirements and resources amendment regulations was made known to the House when we invited the social security advisory committee to consider them in May.
In broad terms, the uprating instruments before us provide for an increase in benefits in the week commencing 22 November which is designed to give full price protection and to make good last year's shortfall not only for those long-term benefits on which we gave a pledge but also for all the other weekly benefits.
For most benefits the increase is a straight 11 per cent., based on a forecast movement of 9 per cent. in the full

retail price index in the 12 months to November 1982; plus a further 2 per cent. to make good an unintended shortfall at the 1981 uprating.
However, in the case of supplementary benefits scale rates, as the House knows, we have decided to change the basis of the uprating to reflect the fact that housing costs are met separately for those on supplementary benefit. As a result, the scale rates are increased by 10½ per cent., rather than 11 per cent., but combined with the amounts allowed separately for housing costs the increase will continue to provide price protection for those on supplementary benefit.
It is four months since my right hon. Friend made his forecast of a 9 per cent. movement in prices in the year to November, so the House now has the opportunity to see if it remains a reasonable forecast, and whether the draft order will, as intended, serve to maintain the value of the benefits covered by it.
At the time of the last uprating the annual rate of inflation was running at 12 per cent. By June, it had fallen to 9·2 per cent., and with the success of the Government's anti-inflation strategy further falls are expected. [Interruption.] So we appear to be well on target. I could have referred to a stronger pound, improved productivity and to continued highly competitive pricing in the private sector. However, Opposition Members would have found that provocative and my objective is to avoid that if possible.

Mr. Brynmor John: I am truly grateful to the Minister for his lack of provocation. However, if there was a miracle and the Government discovered that they had overestimated for the rate of inflation, would they claw back from benefits the percentage that they alleged had been overpaid, just as they did last time, or would they maintain them? [Interruption.] That may be a hypothetical question, but there is an absence of fact in the Minister's remarks.

Mr. Rossi: I am not surprised by the hon. Gentleman's somewhat Pavlovian reaction. As he knows, we considered the matter carefully when we legislated. We legislated for an overshoot on a one year basis only, although it was within our power to enable ourselves to claw back for successive years. However, we chose not to do so. Therefore, if we decide to claw back we shall have to come to the House with fresh legislation. If we had to do that, we should do so with a heavy heart. [Interruption.] Obviously, I cannot—as Opposition Members well know—give any commitment now.
All that I can say is that from what we have done and the way in which we have approached the matter, in not legislating, the Opposition must accept that we have a particular intent, although one cannot predict what circumstances might force us to do in the future.
In the unlikely event that we fall short of the target, which is the converse of the situation that the hon. Gentleman put to us, we stand by our pledge to price protection for pensioners; so in that matter the House can remain fully assured.
We have already demonstrated the strength of our commitment. With the November increase the standard rates of retirement pension will have risen by 68·5 per cent. during our period in office, which will be slightly ahead of the movement of prices, which have risen by about 65 per cent. over the same period.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: How much would pensions have risen if they had been linked to earnings as well as prices?

Mr. Rossi: We have debated that matter ad nauseam. I do not propose to go into that subject now. The Government's pledge is to protect pensioners against inflation. That is what we have done. We have more than achieved that. We have gone ahead of inflation. We shall continue to do that. I am not prepared to be drawn into the canard of the earnings link, which was broken some time ago for good reasons, which have been fully debated in the House in the past.
However, the orders and regulations before us do not simply provide for an 11 per cent. overall increase in weekly benefit. They also incorporate other improvements of particular benefit to elderly and disabled people and others. In accordance with statutory requirements, a full written statement on the uprating of mobility allowance was laid before the House on 8 June.
The increase in mobility allowance will mean an overall increase of 83 per cent. since the Government took office, and the Chancellor has made the allowance wholly exempt from tax from April 1982, measures which will help an even larger number of severely disabled people to take advantage of the Motability scheme.
We are also able, for the first time in three years, to propose an increase in the retirement pensions earning limit, from £52 to £57 per week. That represents well over half the level of average full-time earnings for women and rather more than one-third of average full-time earnings for men, so it provides considerable scope for part-time earnings without loss of pension. We remain committed to the abolition of the rule in the longer term.
In family income supplement for low income families in full-time work, the prescribed amounts for larger families will be increased by rather more than the standard 11 per cent. so as to concentrate more help on the very poorest families in work.
These latest increases in FIS mean that during our period in office the prescribed amount for a one-child family will have risen by over 79 per cent. and for a four-child family by almost 89 per cent.—both well ahead of the movement in prices. That is in addition to the 60p increase in child benefit and associated increases in one-parent benefit.
With regard to supplementary benefit, the capital limit is being increased to £2,500, fully restoring its real value in 1980. Supplementary benefit heating additions are to be increased by about 15 per cent. in line with the forecast increase in heating prices between November 1981 and November 1982. As it turned out, the 1981 uprating of heating additions was slightly higher than the movement in the fuel component of the RPI in the period November 1980 to November 1981. But we have decided that it is right not to take account of this extra improvement in calculating the 1982 levels.
Heating additions will therefore be at an even higher level in real terms than hitherto. The cost of the uprating of heating additions will be about £40 million a year, of which about £10 million is attributable to the decision not to recover the overshoot. Expenditure on supplementary benefit heating additions will now be more than £300 million a year from November 1982.
Another welcome change in supplementary benefit is that we are raising from £20 to £100 the amount of

occasional payment by way of a gift, for example at Christmas or on a birthday, which can be disregarded for supplementary benefit purposes.
I should like to refer briefly to the Supplementary Benefit (Requirements and Resources) Amendment Regulations. They have Keen considered by the social security advisory committee to which I am grateful. Its observations are to be found in Cmnd. 8598.
The main changes of substance relate to heating additions. They adjust the categories that qualify automatically for the disabled person's heating addition of £4·65 a week and revise the provisions for payment of heating addition; for homes that are heated by an estate heating system.
With regard, first, to the disabled person's heating addition, we are making good an oversight. Automatic entitlement is being extended to disabled people who have chosen a tricycle rather than a mobility allowance and—as a result of the advice of the social security advisory committee—some other disabled drivers with Government vehicles or a private car allowance. About 3,000 people will gain, most of whom are already receiving a lower rate heating addition.
At the same time, we are removing an anomaly by withdrawing the disabled person's heating addition from those claimants who qualified for it automatically under the present rules but, because they are in hospital, local authority residential accommodation, or board and lodgings, already have their heating needs met in the accommodation charge that is met in full in their supplementary benefit assessment. Where the heating provided as part of the charge does not cover the claimant's full needs, or where heating is not provided, a sum to meet the additional requirement may still be payable up to the full amount of the disabled person's heating addition. Altogether, about 3,000 people will be affected by the change.
That change will coincide with the uprating in November so that claimants will be cushioned against the effect of the change. I assure the House that we are taking the fullest account of the social security advisory committee's recommendations on the need to examine the way in which the supplementary benefit scheme operates in heating additions for disabled people and to ensure that the changes in the regulations are operated and monitored carefully.
The second proposal on heating additions substitutes, from 9 August, new provisions relating to estate rate heating additions. They have been difficult to operate and were applied to few estates, as hon. Members who have raised these matters know. Two main changes will be made by the proposed new system. If the House approves the draft regulations, my right hon. Friend proposes to exercise the discretion that the regulations give him to designate as estate heating systems with disproportionately high running costs, central heating systems on housing estates that are oil fired, or operate with on-peak electric central heating or off-peak electric storage heating that uses non-standard off-peak tariffs.
This last type of heating system is found on many estates built around 15 years ago, often with poor insulation and proving to be very expensive to heat. In this context, electrical, under-floor or ceiling heating systems are most frequent problems raised by our constituents. The general aim is that claimants living on an estate with one of these expensive heating systems, which gives them no


choice over their fuel expenditure, should be helped, and we shall consider each case most carefully on its own merits in the light of the general principles which I have outlined.
The second change will mean that claimants on an estate such as I have described will receive the new heating additions at one of two rates, set at twice the value of the central heating additions. The lower rate will apply for dwellings of up to four rooms and the higher rate for larger dwellings. There are some claimants for whom these rates will be lower than amounts currently in payment under the existing regulation, in the few cases in which the discretion has been exercised, and the amendment regulations therefore contain a provision to protect their position. Such claimants will retain the full amount of the existing addition when the change takes effect in August. At the November 1982 uprating and subsequent changes which lead to an increase in the requirements of the claimant's household, the heating addition will be reduced by half the amount of the increase until it reaches the new standard levels. This will ensure that claimants in this position will receive at least half the benefit of this November's uprating.
I commend these changes affecting heating additions to the House.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Rossi: The changes relating to the disabled person's heating addition will enable us to concentrate resources on those disabled people most in need. The new provisions for estate rate heating addition will bring certainty into a very difficult area and enable much-needed help to be provided fairly and consistently to many poor households in accommodation with higher heating costs over which they have little or no control.
The proposals set out in the instruments now before the House involve a full year cost of very nearly £3 billion.

Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Rossi: They are further proof—

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Rossi: I have almost finished. The hon. Gentleman can then seek to catch the Chair's eye.

Mr. Foulkes: I wanted to ask a question, not make a speech.

Mr. Rossi: The proposals are further proof, if it were needed, that we are a Government who deliver the goods and honour our pledges. I commend the proposals to the House.

Mr. Brynmor John: The Minister reminded me of the soap advertisements in which there is always a new, improved whizz soap powder and the dread brand X. The Minister was like the rather desperate saleman of the inferior brand X. His desperation was justified because, despite his bellicosity of manner—we all know when he is on a weak point because the decibels go up as the generosity goes down—protection is not being provided in these proposals or otherwise for the living standards of people in receipt of State benefits. It is more a competition of who loses less and who loses more.
One would never have guessed from the Minister's speech, for example, that unemployment benefit now represents the lowest proportion of average earnings since 1951 and bears the lowest relation to prices since 1969—and this at a time when 3·2 million people are unemployed. In the three-and-a-quarter years in which the Minister and his colleagues have formed the Government, most of those in receipt of State benefit have lost.
Not all of that has been done in dramatic ways, although I suppose earnings-related supplement would qualify for that category. What has characterised the Government, and in particular the Department of Health and Social Security, in that time is the thousand petty meannesses, omissions and the lack of imagination that has added to the lot of those on whom the blight of Tory mismanagement of the economy has fallen most severely.
It is no wonder, when I hear the Minister of State, that the Treasury and the Department of Health and Social Security combined to give evidence to a Select Committee that the number of people caught in the poverty trap has doubled during the lifetime of the Government.
I shall lump together several of the points I intend to make into one general thesis. I begin with the case of the vanishing "S" manual. The story starts in February 1981 when the then Secretary of State for Social Services, now the Secretary of State for Industry, annunced that the "S" manual was expected to be published before the end of the year. When the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) asked about that, rather tactlessly, on 17 December the Under-Secretary was deputed to answer—and that was bad news because the Secretary of State had by then divested himself of any responsibility. It was then hoped that the "S" manual would be published about the middle of 1982.
Lest the Department of Health and Social Security has run short of calendars, I remind it that we have now passed the middle of 1982 without publication of the "S" manual. We have seen neither hide nor hair of it. When is this great contribution to open government coming and what is the explanation for the delay?

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I can answer the hon. Gentleman's question now. I am shortly to announce that there will be a further delay of some months before we can publish the document. The reason for the delay is a simple, practical one. The job of putting it into a form that we are confident will be readily usable by our staff and readily understandable by claimants, which is what we want, has proved more difficult than we had anticipated. I feel strongly, and I hope that the House will agree, that it will be better to make sure that we have the document right before it is published than to rush into print with a document that does not meet the purposes we all have in mind.

Mr. John: I accept the Under-Secretary's reply and I acquit him of being the Under-Secretary who in December 1981 had to stonewall so manfully—or in her case, womanfully—with the "S" manual.
I press the Under-Secretary to tell us exactly when the "S" manual will be published. It cannot be true that the Department is concerned that the staffs will be able to use them because the staffs must now be using an "S" manual, or something similar. It must be the effect on the public that the Department is worried about. Therefore, I return


to my original question. When will this document be published and when will this great contribution to semi-open Government come about?
I refer to a point I made in an earlier debate. Is the sole criterion of uprating to be the cost of living? The Minister of State dwelt lovingly on whether it will be 9·2 per cent., the 9 per cent. the Government have forecast, or some other E1 Dorado we do not yet know of? The retail price index, and still less the cobbled together Rossi price index that emerged upon a startled world not so long ago, are totally incapable of adequately protecting the living standards of the very people whose benefits are being uprated tonight. By definition, they are among the poorest in society.
Because of the wider range of income groups included in it, the RPI reflects a wider range of goods. By doing so, there is insufficient weight on those items that form the largest expenditure for people covered by these orders. The Government have boasted that, for the public in general, inflation is now in single figures. Judging by all their other disasters, that is the only jewel in their economic crown. However, given the cost of living for the poor, inflation in their case is very much in double figures. According to the Low Pay Unit report, it is nearly 1¼ per cent. above the official RPI. That gives the Minister's 9 per cent. estimate a hollow sound.
I hope that this is not a matter that divides us. I hope that the Minister will see sense. As the Government are in the business of changing price indices, they ought to begin work immediately on an index that reflects the true cost of living for those who must live on these benefits. They should base their uprating on the percentage rise in those figures. Were they to do so, the uprating in these orders would be very much larger, because the protection given by the RPI is insufficient.
We are dealing with a batch of orders that uprate social security benefits. In reality, that is not what they do. They uprate such benefits as the Government of the day choose to uprate. Some benefits have been neglected for so long and to such a point that their present financial value bears little or no relation to their original value.
Two examples of that, which are outside the scope of these orders, are the death grant and the maternity grant. However, the value of a number of grants and allowances within the scope of these orders has been eroded by the Government's failure to revalorise them at regular intervals.
The Minister mentioned the Pensioners' Lump Sum Payment Order 1982, which repeats the £10 Christmas bonus. That was introduced in 1972. I know that the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) is about to thumb through his well-known script and remind us that the Labour Government, when they increased the pension generally, tried to abolish that grant. I entirely accept that. My point is that the £10 of 1972 is now worth only £2.64 in real terms. It should now be £37.90 to retain its real value. The Government can do many things, but they cannot pretend that a £10 Christmas bonus today confers anything like the same sort of benefit.
Many other supplementary benefit items have the same effect. There is the £4 earnings disregard and the £4 disregard for disablement benefit and industrial death benefit. Had they retained their real value, they would now be worth £4.90 For those who are not required to register for work, the £4 disregard has remained constant since 1975 and would have to be increased to £9.30 to retain its

real value. In case Ministers think that that is a trivial example, I remind them that one of the groups most affected by the failure to operate the disregard are the severely handicapped people who are in adult training and day centres, who are surely the sort of group whom the Minister wanted to benefit and protect most strongly.
Next, we have the disregard for education maintenance, which allows £7.50 to someone in school and £9.50 to someone in college. Those figures have not been uprated since 1979, so that the real value is very much less
We have the £225 limit for single payments for house repairs, which again has not beeen uprated for a considerable time. Where baths are required on medical grounds, they are still rated at 20p per bath, whereas the real cost is very much more.
One of the most conclusive and sad examples is the blind person's addition, on which my hon. Friend the member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and I have made recent representations. That allowance was placed at 15 shillings in 1948 and is now, in 1982, £1.25. To maintain the 1948 value, it would now have to be £8 per week. That is a measure of how much the blind person's addition has fallen in real value to what is by now a mere nominal sum.
The best example is probably the capital limit for single payments. The Minister of State talked lovingly about the increase in the capital allowance from £2,000 to £2,500 where there are pensions payable by weekly payments. He ignored the fact that for single payments the capital allowance is still maintained at £300, whereas it should have been increased to £375 to restore its value,. The Government should attend to it urgently as a matter of simple justice, because great hardship is being caused to people by that wholly inadequate single payment capital grant. Where the analogue of a capital allowance is increased, it is inconceivable to refuse to increase the other similar payment
The Secretary of State derived great mirth from the Christmas bonus. I said that I did not necessarily make the point as one to divide the House on a yah-boo basis; I hoped to make a rather more serious point about it. It may be that the Government regard some of the payments which have not been updated in value as no longer having validity, in which case we ought to debate whether they should remain in existence on the statute book. But while the Government believe that there is a case for their retention, Governments have a duty to maintain the real value of the benefit and should not allow it, by indifference, to wither away to a purely nominal sum.
Before passing from the question entirely, I should like to press Ministers on a matter which I raised earlier, and on which they seemed to be sympathetic. I refer to our desire to exclude from the capital allowance redundancy payments and life insurances in calculating the capital limit. The Government well know that their inclusion in the capital limit rankles very much with everyone, and we want to have an indication from the Government of when they will put right that terrible anomaly.
Today we have heard unemployment figures which must be truly horrifying even to the rather brutalised senses of the Government. We heard that 3·2 million of our people are now registered as unemployed. About 120,000 have been added to the list in the past month. They will have the dubious pleasure of being the first to have their unemployment benefit subjected from the start to taxation. They will suffer also from the 5 per cent. abatement, cut,


swindle or whatever euphemism one chooses to describe the disgraceful dereliction of duty of which the Government have been guilty. The case for abatement has not been made better by the supreme reticence of Conservative Back Benchers in defending the Government's action. In the debates that have taken place on the issue, 16 Conservative Members have participated and only one has defended the Government's action. He did so for less than four minutes. I think that he felt that he had peaked rather early.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) tried to make a speech early on in the first debate.

Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) always tries to make speeches.

Mr. John: The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) added his name to an amendment critical of the Government and then tried to make a speech in support of them. He became thoroughly psychologically mixed up. The best thing that I can say of his speech is that he fought an honourable draw with himself. That was signified when he subsequently boldly and resolutely abstained in the Division.
We have the right to know from the Government—in view of the voting figures we have moral authority to demand this of the Government—when the time is ripe. If the time is not ripe now for the restoration of the abatement, when do the Government consider that the time will be ripe? Income tax has been imposed on unemployment benefit. Will the time be ripe when an all-beneficent Treasury says that the money is finally available? If that is so, the Minister of State and I will both look even older by the time that we are able to celebrate that minor triumph.

Mr. Rossi: Speak for yourself.

Mr. John: I usually do. The Minister usually speaks from a brief.
It is part of the overall tragedy that long-term unemployment has risen during the month to more than one million. The official figures are not available, but it is inconceivable that those who are unemployed for a year or more will not have risen to over one million. The Manpower Services Commission's report, which has been supplied to hon. Members recently, suggests that 40 per cent. of the unemployed during the 1980s are likely to be unemployed for a year or more.
Not the least of the upratings that we want from the Government is one that will allow those who have been unemployed for a year or more to be able to qualify for long-term rates of supplementary benefit. If they cannot do so, they will be placed at a great disadvantage when the length of their idleness or absence of work is determined not by themselves but by many others outside the Government's control and outside their determination. We are talking about the innocent victims of the Government's passion for leanness in the economy. It is indefensible, as the advisory commission on social security has said to the Government, to deprive these people of long-term supplementary benefit.
In our rare moods of bipartisanship on this subject we usually manage to agree for much of the time on how we

should treat children under the supplementary benefit and social security system. By this measure child benefit will be uprated to £5·85 a week. That is a loss in the real value of the benefit, compared with April 1979, of 40p a week. It disguises an even worse anomaly and a clear example of sharp practice. National insurance dependency allowances have been scaled down as child benefit has been scaled up.
Those who are claiming child dependency under national insurance have had a bigger loss overall than the 40p under child benefit to which I have referred. That is of a piece, I believe, with the manner in which we deal with the scale rates under supplementary benefit for children. I rely on the powerful work of David Piachaud in "Children and poverty" in which he produced, from May 1981 figures, modest minimum needs for various age groups of children. These varied from £8·32 a week for a child aged 2 to £12·10 a week for a child aged 11. Those hon. Members who are parents can confirm how modest those allowances are. It would require a greater amount, in my view, to maintain children.
The scale rates fail to match even those minimum needs. The rates at the time when David Piachaud made the calculations were £7·30 for a child under 11 and £10·90 for a child aged 11 to 15. Even for a child aged 11, that amounts to not more than 90 per cent. of the child's minimum need. For lower age groups, the proportion is between two thirds and three quarters of the child's minimum needs. What in heaven's name is happening if we are not even providing a sum that is the very minimum needed to maintain a child decently? I hope, therefore, that we shall be longer on deeds and shorter on pious sentiment. Urgent attention is needed to rectify the situation and to translate our concern into practical measures to benefit children.
I should like to deal with two detailed points in the Supplementary Benefit (Requirements and Resources) Amendment Regulations. The Minister drew attention to the two major changes affecting a disabled person's heating addition and the withdrawal of the heating allowance for certain categories. The hon. Gentleman dealt with payment. I wish to repeat what the social security advisory committee has already put to him. To rely on supplementary benefit means budgeting one's income. If an elderly person is admitted to hospital, the heating allowance is to be immediately cut off and the accumulated debt in respect of heating already used may fall as a debt on the basic income of that person. The advisory committee begged the Government to consider phasing out the allowance and so allow a run-on period even when people are admitted to hospital to deal with accumulated debts. I hope therefore that the Government will consider phasing out the allowance rather than ceasing it abruptly.
Regulation 2(15) deals with the heating addition for what are called hard to heat estates. It is true that some estates are hard to heat. I do not oppose in principle the fixed rate heating addition provided that there are sensible criteria for determining what estates are hard to heat. The Department of Health and Social Security has directed to the social security advisory committee some bland and reassuring remarks. But the Department has not yet produced a list of criteria for defining hard-to-heat estates. The Minister appeared to give a definition based on the type of heating. It cannot be right, however, to say that there are certain inherently expensive forms of heating.


Some buildings experience extreme heat loss. Even a reasonable form of heating in those circumstances will involve extraordinary expense.

Mr. Rossi: I said that each case would be considered on its merits, and gave indications of what criteria would be applied. They would be a guide to the cases in which help would be given and discretion exercised without question. Obviously there are cases other than those that I outlined, and they would be considered on their merits.

Mr. John: I cannot understand the Government's philosophy. They introduced the single benefit regulations to reduce the Minister's discretion. He is now saying that they will grant allowances for on-peak central heating systems, oil-fired central heating and so on, but that there may be other criteria that will provide for a discretionary payment. The Minister must decide whether he wants a guided system or a discretionary system. I have seen examples of how some of the single-payment regulations are working, and I do not mind a completely discretionary system. The Minister cannot haver between the two. We want to know in rather more detail what criteria will be applied.
There cannot be rigidity in the amount of the allowance when enormous heating costs are involved. As I understand the Minister's statement, about £6·60 will be added to the £5·10 heating allowance to make a total of about £12. In Sunderland, as he knows because he quoted the example, there is accommodation that is heated by the ceiling panel method. It is a bizarre form of heating that costs the average tenant £18 per week. The tenant will be £6 a week worse off under the new regulations than he was under the old. He said that existing tenants would be covered. What will happen to the new tenants? If someone dies and another hapless person is persuaded to take over a flat is he to lose £6 a week? The Pilton Estate in Edinburgh has a heating system that produces bills of £20 a week. What is to happen to tenants of such estates?
What is the Minister's definition of an estate? Does it include high-rise flats, no-rise buildings or a mixture of both? My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said that some of the hardships arise where people do not qualify because where they live is not defined as an estate. Will the Government consider individual buildings when they are genuinely satisfied that the heating costs are excessive?
The Government have been remarkably lucky and the recipients of social security benefit remarkably unlucky. I do not accuse the Government over this—it is a quirk of parliamentary life—but little or nothing of tonight's debate will percolate through to the country because of the lateness of the hour.

Mr. Foulkes: And other events.

Mr. John: And other events, as my hon. Friend rightly says. They should percolate through. People should realise what the Government's record on these matters is. If they did the condemnation of their truly appalling record would sweep the Government away. It is a record of insensitivity for which the poor have paid, are paying and for which they will continue to pay as long as this miserable Government remains in office. I hope that will not be long.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Member for. Pontypridd (Mr. John) spoilt an interesting

contribution when he felt, towards the end of his speech, that he had to declare his continuing membership of the Labour Party. It would have been better if he had concentrated on building up a greater bipartisanship—plus the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud)—in getting further advances.
There is no major problem about the draft regulations and we ought to use the debate to start staking out the ground so that we make it possible for the Treasury and the DHSS to work more effectively together in building up a framework in which benefits are unified and the general approach is more consistent with what the House ought to intend to do.
Our general responsibility is not just to bash the Treasury or the DHSS. We should try to make politically possible a mixture of compassion and common sense so that people are not left with inadequate resources or get away with additional help when they do not need it. Most such additional help comes from the narrow tax base and so many tax-free perks and additions.
It is worth consulting ordinary people over a number of changes that might be made. I suspect that I am one of the few hon. Members who have done a random survey of relatively poor constituents about the Government's proposals on the death grant. I worked on the assumption, which many would challenge, that there are no additional resources and I asked whether the resources should be made available universally, at a low level, or selectively, to give substantial help to those who need it and nothing to those who do not—in effect, withdrawing the benefit from 90 per cent. of those who receive it at present.
About 90 per cent. of my poor constituents who were asked that question said that they preferred the Government's proposals. That proves that Ministers, even those in the DHSS, can put forward proposals that the majority of people support.

Mr. Foulkes: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that all the representations from organisations representing the elderly do not accept the basic assumption that no more money is available? Money is available. If seemingly unlimited sums can be found for the task force out of the so-called Contingency Reserve, surely a little can be found to increase the death grant. All those to whom I have spoken have said that that is a major priority and I am sure that the representations that the Minister has received also state that view.

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman confirms my suspicion that he has not been paying attention. All that he has done is to repeat two of the points that I made. I accept what he said about organisations, but I said that I had consulted individuals. I also conceded that many would challenge the assumption behind the question that I put to those individuals.
I hope that the Under-Secretary, who is to reply, will clarify what the Minister said earlier about help with heating costs on hard-to-heat estates. Does the commitment given by the Minister extend to a ministerial view of each applicant or only to whether particular estates should be included in the scheme? There was a slight ambiguity in that respect.
The second point relates to the proposal for electrically heated estates and storage heating. If electric wires run through concrete, does that count as storage heating, or do they have to look like a storage heater to qualify? Such


matters should be clarified, if not immediately, in some other way. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell us how the Government intend to let local authorities know about these matters, so that estates which may be eligible for consideration will be put forward by local authorities. I assume that the initiative will have to come from the housing authority, but perhaps the Minister will confirm that. I hope that the Minister will tell us how the Government and we as Members can encourage housing authorities to come forward.
I come back briefly to the abatement of unemployment pay, which has been mentioned in the debate. The most effective argument that could be made for what the Government induced me to vote for in the last debate—although not in the first two debates—is: if the Government had £60 million available, would they spend it on unemployment pay? I suspect, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) says, that that is not the right question, because £6 million is available, or should be available. With £60 million, the Government could do a great deal for people who tend not to get the consideration that they deserve because the form that our debates take does not include them. When we are debating Supply procedure, or if we get the opportunity each year to debate tax and benefit together, I suspect that many hon. Members could concentrate small sums of money on small groups of people and thereby make dramatic changes in their financial circumstances. I should like the House to have such opportunities so that attention could be given to people whose circumstances are not covered by these instruments.
The most powerful argument for those who did not support the Government in any of the three debates on the 5 per cent. abatement, is that Parliament worked on the assumption that the money would be restored when taxation occurred. When a significant number of members of the party in Government bring forward an issue—not with personal attacks, although a pointed issue was at stake in the first debate—on three occasions within a relatively short time, it is clear that something is deeply worrying Parliament. It is the job of the Government to make sure that they consider the causes of that.
The Treasury Minister who replied to the last debate, did so in the most effective way: he made three brief points, and then he sat down. When the Government have completed the review and restore—I hope—the 5 per cent., I hope that the same Minister will be allowed to announce the increase. It is appropriate that the person whose broad shoulders have been used—this includes my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security—to give the bad news, should be used to give the good news.
Child benefit is tied to the distribution of resources over the life cycle. I shall not wear my family forum hat this evening and shall make no more than a passing reference to our proposal for a Government green paper on tax and benefit over the family life cycle.
Child benefit raises two important points. First, child benefit should be twice as much as it is. That point was alluded to by the hon. Member for Pontypridd. We must build up the sort of constituency that will make that possible. Child income support is still substantially below what it was 25 years ago.
All hon. Members should stop referring to child benefit as part of the social security system. It is part of that

system, but it is far better that it should be referred to as part of the tax and benefit system, otherwise it appears to be a selective benefit by income rather than by circumstance. If we are to raise child benefit to the level desired by many hon. Members, an alliance must be built that will provide the right degree of support.
My second and more controversial point on child benefit is that over the past 20 years there have been many periods, lasting two or three years but no more, when the level of pay increases has dropped because of a formal incomes policy. Each time the incomes policy has broken down on the grounds that the lower-paid cannot support a spouse and children and inflation has been restored to an ever-growing level.
Those who have suffered most have been the lower-paid with family responsibility. During the past two or three years—I am sure that the hon. Member for Pontypridd, who drew attention to conversations continuing during his speech, would like to listen to this as a matter of ordinary courtesy to the House—there has been a reduction in the levels of pay settlements without too much effort to halt that reduction on the grounds that the lower-paid with family responsibilites cannot afford it.
Although 40p has been missing from the level of child benefits since the Government came into office, this has been one of the few periods when the level of child benefit has been nearly price protected. One cannot prove cause and effect, but one can declare an association between maintaining the level of child benefit and making reasonable progress in lowering pay settlements.
I ask the Treasury to look into this and consider what it might expect in terms of saving in public expenditure on the postulation that child benefit was increased by 20 per cent. in real terms at the next Budget, associated with a level of pay settlements about 2 per cent. lower than the level that it would otherwise expect. I believe that the savings to public expenditure of a 2 per cent. reduction in inflation as a result of a 2 per cent. reduction in pay increases, would more than pay for 20 per cent. on child benefit and a lot more as well.
I see no evidence that the Treasury has been willing to do that; nor has the CBI paid any attention to it. However, I have seen some evidence that at least one member of the general council of the TUC believes strongly in what I am saying, although he would not put it in quite the same terms. I would not expect him to. Douglas Grieve of the Tobacco Workers Union did a great service to the trade union movement and to lower-paid employees in Britain when he published his article "Family Policy" in New Society about a year ago, discussing the myth of the family wage.
I value the work of the social security advisory committee. There were several doubts as to whether changing from the Supplementary Benefits Commission system to the new system of running social security payments and the introduction of the social security advisory committee would be wise and acceptable. I believe that the role of the social security advisory committee can be built up and can establish the bipartisanship that I referred to at the beginning. I hope that it will be supported by voluntary organisations and political parties and that the Government will provide the opportunities for the social security advisory committee to be like a continuing Beveridge committee. We need a


coherence and structure in tax and benefits. Perhaps in time we should allow an examination of taxation and a narrowing of the tax base.
If we want substantial increases in social security benefits and to bring the family life cycle into socioeconomic policy, we must have a continuing focus on the married man's tax allowance and examine whether personal allowances should be of greater value to the higher paid than to the lower paid. It would be of great advantage to the Treasury and the DHSS, to the House and the people, to have a more unified approach so that the regulations and similar orders are seen in a coherent framework.

Mr. Clement Freud: I shall not try to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley); I have read the telephone directory. We are discussing the redistribution of benefit. The Minister has told us of the petty meannesses and the limited generosity in the increases.
I am sorry that, after the splendid example of Government rebels in the debate on the 5 per cent. abatement, we seem tonight to have a smaller turnout. I should have thought that the cause was as close to hon. Members' hearts as it was when we came near to showing the country that the mood of the whole House was a fraction more generous than that of the Government.
It would not be impossibly difficult to raise the death grant significantly and to claw back the money from estates in which substantial money is left. A sliding scale could operate. Whenever that is suggested the Front Bench say that it is very complicated. I wish that they would reconsider.
It does not become the official Opposition to chastise and blame the Government for not increasing the Christmas bonus when they, the Labour Party, had plenty of time to increase it in their years in power. The level could have been maintained by small increases, which would have shown willingness—

Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Freud: The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech.

Mr. Foulkes: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give way.

Mr. Freud: I shall not give way. I suggested years ago that—I shall give way.

Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful. The hon. Gentleman said that the Labour Government did not uprate the Christmas bonus. Many of us outside Parliament at that time pressed them to do so. The hon. Member was in the House and a member of the party which entered into the pact with the Labour Government. Did he and his hon. Friends make part of the condition of that pact an increase in the Christmas bonus?

Mr. Freud: That is a very valid point. Such an increase was certainly not a condition. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) will have read in his local newspapers that the loose arrangement that we had with the Labour Government meant that we could not do more than influence a vote. We did not say that our conditions were such and such.
Some years ago I suggested that other more valuable, yet less expensive treats might be given to pensioners at

Christmas. I suggested a return rail ticket to some distant place that could be used at a non-peak time. It might be extremely useful for the elderly who want to visit relatives and children. In an off-peak month—

Mr. J. W. Rooker: Does that mean in the middle of winter?

Mr. Freud: —at an off-peak hour, it might not be a bad idea to allow such travel. The off-peak month could be in the middle of winter and would certainly be at a time when British Rail had plenty of spare capacity. Many old people would enjoy seeing those whom they love, but are unable to visit because of the expense.
I agree with the hon. Member for Woolwich, West and many other hon. Members about child benefit. It is the most cost-effective benefit and it must be easy to administer. It is certainly immensely welcome. The Minister will know how valuable it is to those who depend on it. Indeed, the take-up is enormous.
The take-up of family income supplement is at least 25 per cent. lower than it should be, because that figure came from the Minister. The figure is probably nearer 50 per cent. It is surprising because we, who have constituents who come to us for advice, have maintained that the non-take up of benefits is often due to the stigma attached, to false pride on the part of the claimant which makes him feel that he should not receive it, or possibly bloody-mindedness on the part of the person behind the post office counter. However, no stigma is attached to family income supplement. It is paid to those who work. Take-up is low simply because only a limited amount of publicity is given to its existence.
If the take-up were higher, I do not know whether the amount of family income supplement would fall. Presumably only a limited amount of money is in the kitty. However, as a result of the previous debate, the Secretary of State is now a considerable authority on incomes policies and he might consider using his talents to advertising family income supplement and increasing the take-up in some way. By all standards it is a lamentable percentage of the potential.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I take back everything that I said about him. However, does he agree that it might be sensible to encourage all employers to put a leaflet about family income supplement in employees' pay packets?

Mr. Field: That would be shameful.

Mr. Bottomley: It would no doubt be a shame, but if we are to increase take-up it might be an idea for employers to do that. At least the information would find its way to all employees.

Mr. Field: It is an idea, but I would far sooner see a minimum wage Bill enacted or a minimum wage council created.
The Liberal Party established the Welfare State when it was last in Government. The Welfare State and the administration of benefits have become almost impossibly cumbersome. I wonder whether the time will not come in the near future when the Liberal Party will again be in Government. We may then carry out a root and branch operation to introduce a tax credit system or a genuine reform of a system that has become almost impossibly difficult to administer because of the multiplicity of


benefits categories, supplementary benefit, unemployment insurances, and family income supplement. I do not envy the Minister's job. I just hope that we shall be able to do it, if not better, at least differently, constructively and radically.

Mr. Tim Sainsbury: I hope that we do not have to wait for the return of a Liberal Government to get the tax credit system. The system has many attractions. The continuing development of computer technology should bring it within the grasp of the Treasury, not to mention the Department of Health and Social Security, long before the return of a Liberal Government—we cannot contemplate that unlikely occurrence.
I agree with the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) that it is a pity that more right hon. and hon. Members are not present for the debate. As the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) said, that is attributable not just to the form of the debate but to the time when it is taking place and the other events that took place today.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the way in which he presented the proposals. I discharge him from the accusation of "petty meanness", which is the in phrase on the Opposition Benches.
All of us can find benefits in this enormous range that we would like to single out for generous treatment. In the amending proposals my hon. Friend has shown the care which he and his right hon. and hon. Friends exercise in their regard for the range of benefits, which is perhaps too wide. That could be dealt with more easily if we had a tax credit system.
From a constituency point of view, perhaps a charge of petty meanness—or something not so extreme—can be made in respect of a single payment for home repairs. Our party is committed to home ownership. I am delighted that we are making tremendous strides in furthering home ownership. A generation of the elderly is coming up, far more of whom will be home owners than in the past, whether they own bungalows, houses or flats on freehold or long leaseholds.
I am not entirely convinced that the single payment for house repairs system works satisfactorily, first in the amount that is available, which has not been increased. Secondly, we have the unfortunate system whereby for repairs up to a certain figure, one receives the full payment, but if they are more than that, one does not receive anything. That is an unsatisfactory cut-off. I hope that that matter will be given attention before the next review of the benefits.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd referred to the inflation rate as it applies to the recipients of benefits. I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises how wrong he was when he suggested that the majority of those in receipt of State benefits had lost under the Government. It requires only a moment's reflection to realise that the majority of those in receipt of State benefit are pensioners, who have not lost. We would have liked them to receive more, but we cannot say that they have lost.
The hon. Gentleman rightly said that the retail price index is different for different categories of beneficiaries. That is a point that successive Governments have tended to overlook. We use the all-embracing single retail price

index and assume that that is a satisfactory way of looking at the living costs for different groups of people. I suggest to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that there are two different categories of recipients of benefits who have different potential RPIs, both of which may be different from the national retail price index.
The first group is the pensioners. All hon. Members would agree that food is an especially important ingredient of the RPI for them. Housing and energy costs are also important. I am glad to see that the index for food seems to be rather lower than the national average. That is helpful. I suspect that there is a different RPI for benefit recipients with young children, irrespective of whether they are single.
Perhaps it is necessary to be more sophisticated in our approach to retail price indices to help us to determine which benefits need what increase. We could all use our little pocket calculators these days. I should not have thought that it was beyond the wit of man to do that easily and without needing to gather more information. The information that we already have could be used to reflect the different effects of differential price movements on different groups of beneficiaries.

Mr. Foulkes: The caring sharing Co-op.

Mr. Sainsbury: It does not matter what shop people go to. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) has already made three speeches from a sedentary position and three more on interventions. I do not know whether he hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I hope that if he does his speech will be better than those that he has made so far.
At long last there is to be an increase from £2,000 to £2,500 in the disregard for capital resources. Any charge of petty meanness against my hon. Friend the Minister falls down here. The change is immensely welcome and long overdue. I hope that the House can be assured that it is only a first step. Once again there is a problem—£2,500 or £2,499 and one is all right, there is complete disregard; £2,501 and one is in trouble. That is rather unsatisfactory, as are the categories of assets that are included or disregarded in assessing whether recipients or potential recipients have £2,500 or more in capital assets.
I know from experience in my constituency that that is a problem. It requires fairly urgent and detailed attention. I welcome the increase but I hope that it will prove to be only a first step in the continuing improvement of the benefit system that I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends are striving to bring about.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It is nice to hear a representative of the grocers speaking up for the claimants. There is a clear link—if the claimants have a little more money, they can spend it in the grocers' shops. That is a pleasing start.
I agreed with the comments of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) about the social security advisory committee. I welcome the start that it has made. I am one of many hon. Members who was disappointed at the abolition of the old commission and who wanted the advisory committee to fulfil at least as good a role in campaigning for decent benefits.
I welcome the committee's first report. I also welcome its comments on many of the instruments. Before we give


it too favourable a reception, however, the real test is how far the Government listen to its representations. If it fails to make any impact on the Government, we must see how far it is prepared to campaign in the country to create the type of climate of opinion that clamours for, and demands that the Government do, the sensible things that the committee recommends, especially with regard to the unemployed and the necessary increase in benefits.
We should also comment on the absence of the Social Democrats tonight. Last night, when they were so keen to campaign for their own rights, there was a large turnout. Tonight, when there is an opportunity to campaign for the rights of others, they seem to be completely uninterested. It is amazing that, despite their pretensions about their interest in equality, almost always in social security debates there is either no attendance at all by the Social Democrats or a perfunctory performance by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) who looks in on the debate, says a few words and disappears. Tonight no concern at all has been shown by the Social Democrats and it is a sad reflection on them.
The Minister suggested that there were few surprises in the Government's proposals. That is certainly true, but there are many disappointments. Why cannot the Government afford to spend a little more money? Why do they not restore the £521 million per year that they cut from the social security budget through the Social Security (No. 2) Act and other measures? They claimed that those cuts and the failure to uprate benefits in line with inflation or pensions in line with earnings were necessary to start to get the economy right.
Treasury Ministers keep telling us that things are now starting to go right. In that case, why cannot some money be spent in the uprating orders? If things are going right, November this year would be a reasonable time to start putting back some of the money. Could it be that things are not going right? The best way to convince people that the Government's economic strategy is working would be to start putting that money back into the benefits by considerably increasing the amounts in the orders.
If the Government will not start to uprate, they could at least start to restore some of the cuts. In their first few months of office they made substantial cuts in income tax levels for the highest earners, giving away to them about the same amount of money as they took from the benefits—about £520 million. That was supposed to produce incentives which would get the economy moving so that it would then produce some money for the least well off. Where is that money? It is now nearly three years since those tax handouts were made, supposedly to produce incentives. Where is the money to help the least well off who had to pay for those handouts?
Every hon. Member should be aware that the orders will come into effect at the time when the Government are introducing their new housing benefit which means that most people living on State benefit will lose a considerable amount of weekly flexibility. They will no longer receive their rent money. It will be paid directly by the Government to the local town hall without passing through the tenants' pockets, so they will lose that flexibility. All the groups that campaigned for the combined housing benefit said that the one snag in the scheme was that it reduced flexibility for many claimants. They also said that the advantages could be achieved if only a little extra money could be provided to increase flexibility.
What do the Government intend to do this autumn when they remove that flexibility by making direct payments? How will they help people in the short-term, transitional period when claimants suddenly find that they have less money in their pockets to get by during the week, and what do the Government intend to do in the long term? Also, what do they intend to do about people who are accumulating rent-free weeks? Great bitterness will be caused if, as the Government have suggested, people who have accumulated perhaps one and a half rent-free weeks when the new scheme is introduced then lose that money to the Government? I hope that the Minister will say something about that.
The benefits are supposed to be worked out on a weekly basis. Yet people who appealed against decisions about their weekly benefit have to wait an average of 11 weeks. If that is the average, some people must have to wait even longer. How do the Government expect people to manage for 11 weeks or longer while their appeal is being held when the money is due immediately and not at some time in the future? I hope that the Minister will tell us that he is taking urgent steps to cut down the delay in appeals being heard.
The national average for appeal delays is 11 weeks. In Stockport it has slipped to 13 weeks. I hope that the Minister will confirm that he is taking specific measures in Stockport to ensure that appeals are heard quickly and that people get their money when they need it, not many weeks later.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) asked about the "S" manual. The Minister intervened to tell us a pretty sorry story. The Government are again putting off the publication of the "S" manual. I suggest that the Government are not the only area of wisdom. Many groups representing claimants, and the claimants themselves, have a great deal of wisdom and knowledge. The "S" manual should have been issued in a provisional form and the Department could have updated it, taking representations and arguments into account. It would then be a document on which everyone has participated and not one that is merely a reflection of the magic that happens, or fails to happen, in the Department.
Will the Minister also tell us what the Department is doing about the computers? His predecessor made great play about the way in which the Department is trying to develop a computer programme so that claimants could obtain their rights. They could use the computers and the computers would be available to give advice. I understand that the Government have run into major problems. I hope that the Minister can say how far the so-called computer programme is going or whether the change of Minister means that the programme is to be scrapped.
I also press the point raised by my hon. Friend about the benefits that have not been improved in the order—the death grant, maternity grant, and the Christmas bonus for pensioners that has not been increased to the £37 necessary to restore it to its original value. Nothing has been done on grants for house repairs or the installation of baths. The blind person's allowance has not been increased. The Government must look carefully at the fact that for all these benefits the administrative cost of paying out the money has steadily increased, but not the benefit. If the Government want to obtain good value for money and for administration the real value of all those benefits must be increased.
I turn now to the issue of fuel costs. The Minister said that he was proud that the Government have overestimated the amount necessary to help with fuel bills and that they were not clawing it back. That statement will ring hollow to my constituents who feel bitterly about their fuel bills and are still struggling to pay off last winter's fuel bills. They feel they should be saving for next winter's fuel bills. The Minister then spoke about changes in the heating of high-cost estates. When we read the Minister's words tomorrow we shall see several snags.
There was one major defect. There should have been a joint statement by the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of the Environment, making it clear that the Government are committed not just to helping people with their heating costs but to ensuring that such estates are converted to reasonably priced heating so that heat is not wasted. We must ensure that when people living on high heating cost estates come out of benefit they are not left to meet the full heating costs from their earnings, because that is a major burden on them. We need an approach from Government that helps with heating costs and at the same time gets rid of these expensive flats or converts them to some other form of heating. Decent insulation must be installed so that they are places where people want to live, not places from which people desperately try to escape.
The Minister should publish a national list of estates that qualify so that people can make comparisons of heating costs and challenge the list. It is difficult to discover which estates and dwellings qualify so that people can make comparisons.

Mr. Rooker: This is an important point. About 18 months ago, parliamentary questions were tabled on this subject and Ministers were unable to supply the information. As a result, my hon. Friend and I wrote to certain local authorities. I was informed that no part of Birmingham qualified for extra heating costs under the existing rules. That shows how serious and complex this matter is, given the variety of high-cost heating that must exist in a city as large as Birmingham.

Mr. Bennett: Perhaps the Minister will up-date the information on Birmingham and Greater Manchester. I asked the same questions of Greater Manchester and was originally told that there were no high-cost heating estates in that area. Subsequently I was told that that was not quite true, because three appeals were outstanding. I understand that at least one estate in Moss Side was eventually recognised as a high-cost heating estate. If there were a national list of high-cost heating estates, we could establish whether other estates should be added.
Basically, we ought to get rid of those estates by giving local authorities the money to convert so that people do not have to spend large sums of money on what is often inadequate heating.
The Government were pleased to announce an overshoot on fuel bills, but I doubt whether they have taken into account the problem of the fixed standing charge. Indeed, they seem to encourage boards to increase their standing charges. Such charges are a real penalty to those about whom we are concerned—people on low incomes and those who try to keep their fuel costs down by minimising the use of gas or electricity. I suspect that the Government have not taken into account the effect that these steadily rising standing charges are having on these families.
I welcome the fact that the Government have increased the amount of the cash gift from £20 to £100. Presumably that is a reflection of their view that people cannot get by on these benefits and need to receive such gifts. However, it is anomalous that gifts in kind have not been taken into account.
I also welcome the fact that the Government have increased the qualifying ceiling from £2,000 to £2,500. It is ironic that although they announced this in March, it will not be introduced until November. As a result, many people who reduced their capital from £2,500 to below £2,000 may find months later that they could have kept their original amount.
It is particularly mean that the Government have not increased the single payment. That should have been increased, especially as many elderly people, realising that the death grant is totally inadequate, want to have savings that will give them a decent funeral. Sadly, many people cannot get single payments because they are providing for their funeral. The Government ought to have increased the single payment in line with inflation.
I very much regret that the Government have not begun to increase child benefit so that eventually we can get rid of child allowances and other benefits. The sad thing is that they have not kept child benefit in line with inflation. Can the Minister give us any idea of the proportion of people who have now opted, where they have the choice, to continue to take child benefit weekly as opposed to monthly? How many people have now had to take it monthly because it is their first child and have been allowed to move to weekly payments because they are on supplementary benefit, and how much hardship is being created in that area?
What will the Government do about unclaimed benefit? The amount of unclaimed benefit goes steadily up and up and the Government are doing very little to ensure that people get that extra benefit. It is all very well to say that the amount of money available from family income supplement has gone up and up, but as far as I can see, the number of people receiving it, and particularly the number of people who apply for it immediately when there is an uprating, is not adequate. The Government ought to be doing much more to ensure that all the people for whom the benefit is designed are getting it.
I very much regret that the Government are not doing anything for the long-term unemployed, the people who need some major help. If there were few surprises in the Minister's opening remarks, I suspect that there will be very few surprises in the reply to the debate. It is about time that the Government surprised the House by showing a little generosity to the unemployed, the people who the Government are demanding should make the sacrifices and who ought to be protected from the hardships of unemployment by getting a decent rate of benefit.

Mr. Frank Field: I accept the Government's rhetoric at its face value. The Conservative Party often tells us that it is the party of the family. Those present in the Chamber tonight would probably agree that the one crucial ingredient of a family is children. The one element missing from the Minister's speech was any information as to what the uprating does for children. I do not think that the omission was because he was being kind


to us and hurrying through the pages of his speech. Of all the groups considered tonight in the uprating, the children have fared the least well.
In three ways the Government have attacked those with children. First, as has been said, the increase in supplementary benefit is undertaken in relation to the Rossi price index. It has meant that the increase has been less generous than it would have been if the old way of increasing benefit had been followed. When one is managing a family on supplementary benefit and when all the needs of the younger children have to be covered on about £1 a day, any change that the Government make which means that the increase is less generous than it should be is a matter of great importance to the family.
The second blow to the family has been through the way in which the Government have increased the child dependency additions for national insurance beneficiaries. The increase this year is about 1½ per cent. No wonder there was no mention of that review by the Minister.
The third cut has come in child benefit, as has already been mentioned by practically all hon. Members who have spoken, except the Minister.
The main point of staying until this late hour is to ask the House not to follow the advice given in one of the briefs which have been prepared for hon. Members speaking in the debate. The brief suggests that a suitable way of finding additional resources for increases in child benefit would be to apply a cash ceiling to the married man's tax allowance and to put that money on to child benefit. The brief says:
Had the extra tax relief for married men aged under 65 been frozen in this year's Budget, child benefit could have been increased by an extra 65p with the £360 saved.
That is the last thing that we want to see happen to child benefit. The reason for that is to be found in the brief. If we examine how the tax burden has changed for families on three-quarters of average earnings, we find that it has increased the fastest for those with two children. For those families it has increased by 418 per cent. It has risen for the childless couple by 131 per cent. and for single people by 92 per cent.
If we are advocating phasing out the married man's tax allowance and transferring the moneys to child benefit, we are advocating shifting resources to those with children. If we are to reverse the discrimination in our tax system against those with children, resources must come from elsewhere, especially from those who do not have children and from those who are single. That is different from saying that we want the married man's tax allowance phased out and that we want to use the additional revenue to pay a new benefit to families. The example that is often given is paying a benefit to families with children under five years.
There are two arguments being advanced and there is confusion in the brief to which I have referred. It advocates a move that we should not accept if the aim is to redress the discrimination in our tax and benefit system which families have suffered. That is not to say that we do not want to phase out the married man's tax allowance and other tax benefits. Had the previous Labour Government started that process we would have the revenue, by phasing out the married man's tax allowance by putting a cash ceiling on it, and we would be able to pay a cash benefit of £25 a week to families with children under five years. There is a large amount of money to play for. It is an important issue that we need to discuss. If we wish to deal

with the discrimination that families have suffered in the tax system, money must come from other sections of the community without children.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman spell out in writing and in greater detail the arguments that he is advancing so that they can be examined by those who take an interest in these matters? Secondly, do his remarks apply to the many married couples without family responsibilities who enjoy the advantage of the married man's tax allowance, the main group which I thought were supposed to give up some of the increased allowance that the Government, in my view, wrongly allowed them?

Mr. Field: That is right, but the hon. Gentleman is muddying the issue. There are many who claim the married man's tax allowance who have children. If we give the Government a let-out by saying that they can make good their shortfall on child benefit by clawing back from the married man's tax allowance, we are asking many people with children to pay for the shortfall. In other words, we shall be robbing Peter to pay Peter. We should transfer money from Peter to pay Paul.
There are two questions before the House. First, where do we find the extra moneys to build up the child benefit system? That must come from those without children. Secondly, we as a nation pay a large subsidy to married couples without children throughout the working lives of the husbands, and perhaps it would be more sensible to make moneys available when families need them most, which is when there is only one wage packet because they are beginning to have families. The brief that is before us does not do that and it does a disservice to the family.
I welcome back to the Chamber the right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon), who represents the Social Democratic Party. In many of his colleagues' speeches, especially those of his hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright), the question is asked "Why cannot we make more progress on this issue?" The answer is disarmingly simple. The House of Commons is good at dealing with class issues. It is not good at dealing with issues that cut across generations. A great deal is heard about the Social Democratic Party being the mould breakers of British politics. This issue is a mould breaker. It is interesting that speeches in support of that break have been made from the Labour and Conservative Benches. There has yet to be a contribution from the Social Democrats in support of that aim.

Mr. Allen McKay: I wish only to emphasise a couple of points. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say about the 5 per cent. abatement. Although the Government won the vote last week, they certainly lost the argument. Their action did not accord with the will of the House. They will probably come to view with shame what has occurred. Even if actual promises were not made, understandings should be upheld. Many people have been severely hurt.
There has been reference to the £2,500 cut-off point in relation to old people who save for their funerals and who are penalised because they cannot receive supplementary benefit. Another class of person is also affected. A company in my constituency, Paramor's, became insolvent and between 500 and 600 people were made redundant. They were paid out of the insolvency fund only


to find that notional tax was stopped. However, as it was notional tax and no money went to the Inland Revenue, they found that no rebate was available. I approached the Minister who eventually saw the point.
I understand that legislation will take care of the matter. It does not, however, take care of the men at Paramor's. When they received money for the period of their notice, the unemployment pay they had recieved during that period was deducted. But the unemployment period started from the moment they became redundant and not three months later during the period of notional notice. They have received nine months' rather than 12 months' unemployment pay.
The harm is felt now that they have been unemployed for 12 months. These are people aged 58 and 59 who have redundancy pay and who decided to save for their retirement. Yet they are penalised. They are told that they must spend the money they have saved by thrift—a quality that I had imagined a Conservative Government would applaud. The cut-off point should take account of these matters. When an engineering firm makes apprentices redundant and decides to sell its apprentice workshop, there is no long-term future. That means there is also no long-term future for these people. It is more than likely that they will be condemned to be unemployed for the rest of their lives. They now have to spend their savings to take them below the £2,000 mark when they can claim supplementary benefit. There is something wrong about a system in which people are encouraged to save and are then forced to spend and to live on the pauper's line. Whatever the Government say, unemployment will exist for a long time if these policies are continued. The Government should recognise what is happening in the world, and the fact that people are proud. They are now becoming extremely bitter when they find that the Government's policies are working against something in which they have believed all their lives. Will the Minister answer those points?

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I shall certainly try to take account in my remarks later of the broader points that the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. McKay) made. I hope that he understands that I should like the opportunity to look more carefully at what he said about his constituents. I can read it in Hansard and write to him later with my comments.
I am somewhat relieved that as my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) and the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) apparently cannot understand each other on an important point, there is little chance for a mere social security Minister to understand either of them. I have now received a message from my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West to say he believes that the hon. Member for Birkenhead has it half wrong. I am even more confused, and I hope that they will both understand if I stay out of that argument.
Although I had my fears at the outset of the debate, it has been a constructive exchange of views on the uprating and some complicated technical provisions which we had before us. I accept that it is an awkward time of night to be discussing these matters. Apart from the points that the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) made, we are

discussing a set of proposals and regulations that affect every person in the country. They might have been done more justice at another time of day.
I say to the hon. Member for Pontypridd, who is leading for the Opposition, that I do not want to follow him too far down the track of arguing about the Government's whole record on social security. I believe that he does less than justice—I can perhaps say this more readily than some, as I arrived in the Department only on 5 March and can have had nothing to do with the decisions that underlay the uprating.

Mr. Field: He is washing his hands.

Mr. Newton: No, I am not washing my hands, to pick up the sedentary interruption of the hon. Member for Birkenhead. He should let me finish my sentence, although it is becoming rather long and convoluted. I believe that the hon. Member for Pontypridd has genuinely done less than justice to the achievements of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security in protecting the social security system at a difficult time. I go beyond that to say that despite all the comments and criticisms that have been made—I understand why they are made, and no doubt if I were on the other side of the House I should say much the same—against the background of the three or four difficult years that we have had, the Government have managed to protect completely the short-term supplementary benefit safety net and the long-term benefits—the pensions—which provide the basic bedrock of the social security system. That is a substantial achievement.
I do not deny, nor do I disguise the fact, that some difficult decisions have had to be taken about some other aspects of the benefit system. I suspect, however, that our achievement in protecting long-term benefits is appreciated more in the country than it is in the House.

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman makes too strong a case. Does he not accept that in the current financial year there has been a cut of £1·5 billion in the social security system? That is the Government's figure. Almost half that sum—£700 million—was directly attributable to cuts and changes in retirement pensions.

Mr. Newton: I do not accept the charge in the form in which the hon. Gentleman makes it.

Mr. Rooker: They are the Government's own figures.

Mr. Newton: I do not want to take too much time arguing about details. The broad basic achievement is more substantial than is often recognised in the House and it has been brought about at a time of acute difficulty for the country and for many who are not on benefit. It would have been tempting for me to spend time on those matters and to elaborate the best points in the uprating and the associated changes, but the lot of a mere Under-Secretary is less glamorous and it is my task to sweep up the points raised in the debate.
I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Pontypridd on the question of the "S" manual and I cannot add much to what I said. There will be further delay before we can get the manual published, for the reasons that I mentioned in my intervention. The hon. Gentleman said that as staff must already be using the document in its present form, together with the guidance issued in various ways, there could be no great objection to our pushing it out in its present form.

Mr. John: The hon. Gentleman said that the manual could not be pushed out because there was concern about the form in which it appeared and the effect on the staff and public of reading it in that form. I suggested that as the staff were using an "S" manual anyway, the Government's fear must be the effect on the public of reading it in its present form.

Mr. Newton: I resist the implication of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. There were sedentary interruptions earlier from an hon. Member who implied that he has something less than confidence in the quality of DHSS written material, and one of the problems is that the guidance in its present form is not always entirely adequate even for the staff. We are anxious to provide an improved version of guidance for staff and the public. It is important to get it right.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Can the Minister assure us that the manual will be published in this calendar year?

Mr. Newton: In view of the history of ministerial assurances on this matter, I think that discretion is the better part of valour. I hope that it will be possible to publish the manual this year, but there is at least a possibility that it may be early year.
One of the major points raised by the hon. Member for Pontypridd was the question of which indices should be used for the uprating. We are not convinced of the case for shifting from the use of the retail price index. As far as we can judge, it remains the best overall indicator of price rises and is, therefore, the most appropriate measure to determine the rise in the main social security benefits.
I do not rule out considering alternatives if the hon. Gentleman can come forward with some that have not been suggested previously, but the pensioner price index, for example, is published only quarterly and excludes housing costs. That is an imperfect instrument and even if it could be shown to have conclusive merit over the RPI, it has shown little divergence from the RPI over the past few years, especially if one takes the retail prices index excluding housing costs. I shall not weary the House with statistical examples, but I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the comparison that I have in front of me, showing the movements in that index, compared with the RPI, both with and without housing costs, over the past few years. I think that he would agree that it does not present a conclusive case for an alternative index—certainly not one that has persuaded the Government.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the number of benefits and disregards that have not been uprated in the statement. He perhaps underestimated the extent to which we have moved on a number of important matters. For example, there was an improvement in the earnings disregard for one-parent families. Separate regulations will be introduced to provide an increase of over 20 per cent. in the therapeutic earnings limit for those in receipt of sickness and invalidity benefits, giving particular help to those who are preparing themselves to return to full-time work after illness or disablement. For those who give up full-time work to care for a severely disabled relative, we propose—again, in separate regulations—to double the amount of part-time earnings that can be earned without affecting entitlement to invalid care allowance. That is the first such increase since 1976. I accept, of course, that we

have not moved on all possible disregards this year. Part of the background to that is that, by definition, money spent on improving disregards, rather than raising benefits, goes to people who are somewhat better off than people who have no earnings at all. They obviously help only those who have earnings over and above benefit. We have made these two significant moves, which I hope that both the hon. Gentleman and the House will welcome.
On the lump sum payments and the extent to which they have not been uprated, the hon. Gentleman should accept that, in both the death grant and the maternity grant, the Government have published substantial consultative proposals—in the case of the death grant, it was quite recently by my hon. Friend, and in the case of maternity grant and maternity benefits generally, it was about 18 months ago—suggesting that because of the problem of uprating the existing system, changes could be made to bring additional help to certain categories or groups of people. In both cases, there has been a good deal of disagreement among those consulted—certainly on the maternity benefits, and currently on the death grant—about what is the right way to move. I am not saying that I am now certain about any one solution. However, the Government have acknowledged the problem of the non-uprating of these benefits, together with the problem of finding sufficient resources to do so in the way that is sometimes called for and they have moved to put before the public proposals about how to develop the benefits to help people in particular need. That is a sensible way to proceed, and I hope that as a result of both these consultation exercises, it will be possible in due course to move forward with a reasonable amount of public agreement.

Mr. Foulkes: If all the representations—or the vast majority of representations—on the death grant from all the organisations and bodies consulted say that they do not like any of the options, and there is an overwhelming view in favour of a substantial across-the-board increase in the death grant, will the Government accept that result and give an across-the-board increase?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot give him that undertaking. I shall not attempt to speak for my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security, although I hope that he would say the same. I have listened to demands this evening that must in total have called for the spending of about £1 billion on aims that most hon. Members present would regard as worthy, not least the claims of the long-term unemployed. I should want to consider whether an all-round increase in the death grant was to take priority over, say, the extension of the long-term supplementary benefit rate to the unemployed. The chances are that we are talking about roughly comparable sums of money.
I normally play a fairly emollient role in these debates, but I am fed up with the extent to which Labour Members will never face up to the question of priorities. They simply demand everything that seems to be desirable, with no real thought to the problems.

Mr. John: The Under-Secretary, who is better at being emollient than abrasive, will realise that my point was that one had to decide either not to keep such specific grants or to uprate them, but that one could not do half a job, which is what is being done at the moment.
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the choice now is between giving the long-term supplementary rate to the unemployed and the increase of the death grant? I suspect that he is giving a bogus choice to make a bogus debating point.

Mr. Newton: If we are to start arguing about who is making bogus debating points, there has been some pretty stiff competition in the course of the debate.
The hon. Gentleman adopted the same approach at Question Time the other day in relation to the invalid care allowance and the 5 per cent. abatement of unemployment benefit. I do not say that these are direct and definite alternatives. I am simply saying that, if a given sum of money is available, it must be decided what it shall be spent on.
Nobody approaching the matter in a realistic or commonsense way could resist that conclusion. I am rather tired of being confronted with successive demands for all sorts of desirable aims without any attempt to set them in an order of priority.
I accept, and it is implicit in everything I have just said, that there is a problem created by those benefits that have been at their present level for a considerable period—for example, the death and maternity grants. However, it is unreasonable to accuse the Government of trying to bury those when we have gone to some trouble to bring proposals before the House and the country to solve the problems.
I turn to more general matters that have been raised in the debate. First, a great deal of play has been made of the fact that the number of people in the poverty trap has increased over the past few years. One of the principal reasons for that is the substantial increases that the Government have made in family incomes supplement, which, by definition, is designed to help those in work and which therefore creates the situation in which more benefits are lost as earnings rise.
However, if the avoidance of an increase in the poverty trap is the end to be pursued above all others, the logical consequence would be to decline to support further increases in family income supplement. There is no way to increase family income supplement at any given point in time without increasing the number of people in the poverty trap. That may be a dilemma, and I do not pretend that it is particularly pleasant, but anybody attacking the poverty trap must recognise that it partly arises from giving additional help to working families with children, which is something that in general everybody wants.
The 5 per cent. abatement of unemployment benefit has been thrashed over extensively in the past few months in the House, the most recent occasion being only last week. I do not propose to attempt to add to what was said by Ministers in those debates. We shall keep the issue under review, but we do not believe that it is possible to restore the abatement at this time.
I do not want to risk inflaming Opposition Members further by discussing priorities in another context, but when examining benefits for the unemployed we are conscious of the problems of the long-term unemployed and the long-term supplementary benefit rate. I ask Opposition Members to consider where they would put that in their list of priorities.
We have moved in an important way in respect of the over-60s who, if they are unemployed and have been on benefit for a year, can go on to the long-term supplementary benefit rate if they cease to register for work. That is a modest move, but it is helpful and sensible. Opposition Members might think that it has merit.
The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) talked about housing benefit. I recognise his anxieties. We shall debate the housing benefit regulations fully next week. That will be the appropriate time to take account of his remarks.
I recognise the problem of appeals. I wrote to the hon. Member for Stockport, North about what happens in Stockport and I shall re-examine the position. There is some evidence that the efforts by the commissioners and by chief supplementary benefit officers and chief national insurance officers to speed up the handling of appeals is beginning to have some effect. There is some improvement in the pace of appeals. We are anxious to ensure that that progress is sustained.
Hon. Members are worried about the supplementary benefit capital rules. We have said repeatedly that we are keeping them closely under review—to use the classic phrase. I am not in a position to give commitments tonight, but we continue to be aware of the problem. We have given a clear sign that that means more than it sounds by the proposal in the regulations to raise the £2,000 limit to £2,500 in November.
I made it clear at Question Time recently that we are conscious of the problem, which has been emphasised tonight, of the £300 capital cut-off limit for single payments in the context of payments for fuel. We shall have that in mind when considering what further steps we can take.
I was struck by the letter which my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) wrote about the housing repairs limit. His letter stuck in my mind. We are examining that aspect. I cannot give a guarantee this evening, but I assure him that it has not been forgotten.
There is much interest in heating additions. The hon. Member for Pontypridd mentioned the SSAC's report and the position of disabled people in hospital or coming out of hospital. I can do no better than quote the Government's response to SSAC's report. It states:
The Committee did not recommend any changes in the proposal, but drew attention to a number of points mainly affecting the position of claimants in hospital and their dependents to which they think further consideration should be given. We shall examine all these carefully … We shall also take steps to see that effect is given to the Committee's recommendations about the position of disabled people in board and lodging accommodation.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that those words were used in good faith. We were struck by the points made by the SSAC and we shall consider them carefully. By means of guidance, or if necessary, through changes we shall do our best to meet the anxieties that have been expressed.
The system that we inherited for estate rate heating additions has proved to be virtually inoperable. The method of trying to assess in detail reasonable heating costs more or less house by house and estate by estate has meant that very few estates—little more than a handful—have been designated. However, the two estates in Manchester touched on by the hon. Member for Stockport, North have been designated. The reason for the proposals before the House tonight is that unless there is some simplification along the lines proposed it is


extremely difficult to see how the scheme can be made to work. We propose flat rates of heating addition associated with an assessment of estates broadly on the basis of the type of heating system in operation.
As my hon. Friend the Minister said, the general policy is to refer to the type of heating system. After careful study, we have come to the conclusion that that is the best indicator of whether a house is hard to heat. However, these cases are difficult and if we laid down rigid criteria they would simply create more problems, because certain estates have novel and unique systems which we are anxious to be able to cover.
Therefore, we shall proceed on the basis outlined by my hon. Friend the Minister. I confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West that the consideration applies to estates rather than to individual claimants. It is proposed to include heating systems using non-standard off-peak tariffs—tariffs that are operated by the electricity boards—for systems that require more than the seven or eight hour charge of modern storage heaters. We cannot tell whether individual estates qualify without examining the cases in detail, but I assure my hon. Friend that there is no confinement to estates with storage heaters.
These tariffs are associated with expensive heating systems and that is why we propose to pay higher rates of heating additions to claimants on those estates.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Would it not be better to classify schemes according to the working cost rather than to the type of heating? Even within the same system the costs vary. Should there not be some correlation between the Department of Energy's conservation provisions, such as those relating to insulation, and the heating grants given?

Mr. Newton: The attempt to tailor-make heating additions to particular circumstances and properties has made the existing scheme virtually impossible to operate. Unless we can attain the sort of simplified system that we have outlined the thing will not work. The hon. Member for Stockport, North also raised a point about insulation, but that would take me beyond the ground that I can properly cover when discussing social security regulations. I shall make sure that the words of the two hon. Members are drawn to the attention of my colleagues in the Department of Energy and especially the Department of the Environment, as it is often a matter for the local authorities—

Mr. David Lambie: And the Scottish Office.

Mr. Newton: Indeed—and the Scottish equivalent Departments.
In conclusion—

Mr. Rooker: Do not be intimidated by the Chief Whip.

Mr. Newton: If I am not intimidated by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), I am unlikely to be intimidated by the Chief Whip.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Once a Whip, always a Whip.

Mr. Newton: Evidently not, from the evidence tonight.
In conclusion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—I shall pick up one strand that has come up in some speeches in the debate, which is about the role of the social security advisory committee. A number of points that have come up in this debate and the regulations, owe a great deal to the work of that committee. A few months ago, when we discussed the new fuel direct regulations, the hon. Member for Pontypridd complained that we had published two sets of regulations that had not been referred to the SSAC. He wondered whether we were going to bypass it. I assured him that we did not intend to. I hope that he will take what has happened in relation to the regulations as a sign of the considerable value that we place on its work.
Those who have read our response to the SSAC's comments on the regulations will find it almost repetitively littered with references to changes in the regulations made as a result of points made by the committee and with undertakings to look further at additional points that it had raised. I hope that that reflects what will be continuing work of co-operation between the Department and the SSAC in trying to achieve what everyone in the House wants to achieve regardless of political difference, which is a social security system that is tailored as well as possible, in detail, to the needs and interests of those whom we are trying to serve.
Hon. Members have played their part in that. The SSAC is playing a continuing part. I hope that we shall be able to go on playing our part and that in that spirit the House will accept the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 29th June, be approved.

SOCIAL SECURITY

Resolved,
That the draft Child Benefit (Up-rating) Regulations 1982, which were laid before this House on 29th June, be approved.
That the draft Family Income Supplements (Computation) Regulations 1982, which were laid before this House on 29th June, be approved.
That the draft Pensioners' Lump Sum Payments Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 29th June, be approved.
That the draft Supplementary Benefit Up-rating Regulations 1982, which were laid before this House on 8th July, be approved.
That the draft Supplementary Benefit (Requirements and Resources) Amendment Regulations 1982, which were hid before this House on 8th July, be approved.—[Mr. Rossi.]

Rate Support Grant Reduction (Stirling District)

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I beg to move,
That the report on the Rate Support Grant Reduction (Stirling District) 1982–83, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th July, be approved.
I would like to start by reminding the House of the reason why it was necessary to take last year the powers to reduce the rate support grant payable to an individual authority and why we are having to use these powers again this year.
All Governments have taken steps to control local authority expenditure. There may be disagreement about the way in which that is to be done, but the general principle has been accepted and acted upon by successive Administrations, including the Labour Government. When this Government took office we inherited a situation where local authority expenditure was at a high level and was increasing. That had serious implications for the national economy. The Secretary of State's first action was therefore to urge local authorities to reduce their expenditure, both to protect their ratepayers from excessive rate burdens and to reduce the overall level of public expenditure in the national economic interest.
Some authorities made efforts from the start to comply, but unfortunately a few continued to budget for a high and increasing level of spending. Both in 1981 and in this year a small number of Scottish local authorities accounted for a significant part of the excess of budgets over guidelines. This was the reason why the Secretary of State took powers last year in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act to allow him to reduce grant selectively when he was satisfied that an authority's budgeted expenditure was excessive and unreasonable. That meant that the Secretary of State was able to take action to prevent an authority from spending excessively instead of being limited in his action until the expenditure had taken place.
Selective action under the powers taken last year therefore has two merits. It acts before the expenditure has taken place and it concentrates on authorities that are principally responsible for the planned overspending. In 1981–82, as well as taking selective action, it was necessary for the Government to impose a general cut in rate support grant because the budgets of authorities as a whole were in excess of the Government's spending plans. The selective action reduced the amount of the general abatement. It is therefore in the interests of authorities as a whole that the Secretary of State should act in this way.
In 1981–82, Scottish local authorities budgeted to spend at 8·8 per cent. or £180 million, above the level estimated for rate support grant. This year, local authorities budgeted to spend 8 per cent. or £205 million, above the level implicit in the grant settlements.

Mr. George Foulkes: Was that just Stirling?

Mr. Stewart: That was for all Scottish local authorities.

Mr. Foulkes: What is being done about the others, then?

Mr. Stewart: This year, as last year, some authorities budgeted both to spend well above the average excess and contributed significantly to the total. One of them was Stirling district council—the subject of the report before us tonight.
The Secretary of State, in his letter of 27 April to Stirling district council, which is contained in the report, sets out the information that has led him to the view that the authority's planned expenditure for 1982–83 is excessive and unreasonable. Stirling's excess is the highest for any district council in Scotland. Guidelines are, of course, not the only measure that the Secretary of State uses when reaching his view. However, it is worth noting that Stirling's excess is more than double the excess of any other district council in Scotland. In addition to the authority's guideline excess, the Secretary of State's letter contains information that shows that Stirling planned to spend significantly more per head of the population, not only than the average for all district councils—

Mr. Foulkes: Does it apply to Orkney?

Mr. Stewart: —but also considerably more than the average of closely comparable authorities. Perhaps hon. Members would like the figures. Stirling's planned expenditure per head was £75·6. The average for closely comparable authorities is £56·2. Stirling's rates at 44p in the pound are again significantly above the average for all district councils of 32p in the pound. The district has shown a steady increase in expenditure from 1978–79. Each year the guidelines have been exceeded to a greater degree.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Perhaps the Minister would care to comment on the figures on page 4 of the Stirling district council's official response regarding its expenditure as compared with that of other district councils in Scotland. They would appear to show that Stirling's expenditure is reasonable when compared with other local authorities.

Mr. Stewart: The figures demonstrate no such thing. Stirling claimed that the authorities selected by the Secretary of State as comparable were not those that it would have chosen. The annex to the report shows, however, that even in relation to Stirling's own choice of comparators the excess is similarly very great.
Each year, the guidelines have been exceeded to a greater degree and cumulative growth in expenditure per head between 1978–79 and 1982–83 is 41·6 per cent. in real terms. This figure has to be compared with an average increase for all district councils in Scotland of 6·1 per cent. and for closely comparable authorities of 7·9 per cent. Even over the last year, between 1981–82 and 1982–83, Stirling's expenditure per head shows an increase of almost 20 per cent. in real terms.
Taking all those factors together, the Secretary of State was of the opinion that the council's planned expenditure for 1982–83 was excessive and unreasonable. He invited the council to make representations to him. The district council's representations are set out in its letter of 27 May 1982 which also appears in the report before the House. The points made in that letter were amplified in the course of a meeting between representatives of the district council and myself on 2 July and a record of that meeting, which has been agreed with the district council, has been placed in the Library.
In its representations, Stirling district council makes a number of points and I will make a few main comments on them. We accept that local democracy has an important part to play in our system of government. However, although local authorities are free to determine their own spending priorities, they must take into account the wider economic interest and the part that national democracy has to play. With local authority expenditure accounting for one-quarter of public expenditure, it is not reasonable to argue that local democracy justifies local government ignoring the requirements of the national economy for which national Government are democratically responsible to this House.
Stirling district council questioned the choice of authorities with which the Secretary of State had compared it. This perhaps relates to the point raised by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan).

Mr. Canavan: No, that was not my point.

Mr. Stewart: At any rate, it was a major point put forward by the district council. The comparator authorities were chosen by the Secretary of State on a systematic basis by choosing authorities whose rateable subjects relative to population and whose settlement pattern and level of multiple deprivation were most similar to those in Stirling. However, Stirling suggested an alternative list of comparators.
In the annex to the report hon. Members will find the equivalent information for Stirling's choice of comparators. The main additions made to the list of comparators are Aberdeen and Dundee districts, neither of which we regard as being closely comparable to Stirling. However, the average expenditure per head for Stirling's choice of comparator authorities, including Aberdeen and Dundee, is still well below its own planned expenditure per head. Similarly, the growth rate for this group is well below that of Stirling.
I met representatives of the council on 2 July. As I have said, a note of the meeting agreed with Stirling is available in the Library. At that meeting, the council amplified its formal representations as the note makes clear. I reported to the Secretary of State what the council had said. After careful consideration of the representations in the light of the discussion at the meeting, the Secretary of State remained satisfied that Stirling's estimated expenses for 1982–83 were excessive and unreasonable.
However, in the light of these representations and the fact that part of the financial year had already passed, the Secretary of State decided to reduce the proposed reduction in RSG from £1·.5 million to £1·2 million. Accordingly, the report before the House proposes a grant reduction of that lower amount.
At my meeting with the council's representatives, they said that the council had not yet reached a decision on whether to reduce its rates. I very much hope that the council will give further consideration to the possibility of reducing its rates as it has the power to do under the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. If it does this, it will return the savings made to its ratepayers instead of forfeiting them to the Exchequer. It has always seemed to me inexplicable that a council faced with a requirement, approved by the House of Commons, to reduce its expenditure, should choose to surrender that amount of rate support grant to the Exchequer rather than return it to its ratepayers. This, of course, is the reason why we have

sought further powers in the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Bill this Session to ensure that in future any such savings cam be returned to the ratepayers by means of a reduction in the rates.
I hope that Stirling will follow the example of the Renfrew district council in my own constituency last year in agreeing to return money to its ratepayers—domestic, industrial and commercial.
If the House approves this report tonight, there would be an appropriate period before the Secretary of State notified the district council of the reduction in its grant. Within that period the council can exercise its choice to reduce its rates. The Secretary of State is under no obligation to modify or drop a proposal to reduce grant in the light of a reduction in the rate, but I can assure the House that he would consider carefully and sympathetically any such proposals made by Stirling.

Mr. Canavan: The hon. Gentleman would get a rate rebate.

Mr. Stewart: So, of course, will the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire.

Mr. Canavan: I would rather have improved services.

Mr. Stewart: However, I emphasise that while we are prepared to co-operate with the council if it genuinely intends to reduce its rates, we are not prepared to delay notification, because it is in the interests both of the ratepayers and the council that the savings which it has to make are implemented very soon to minimise unnecessary disruption in the council's activities.
The figures set out in this report, and in particular in the appendices to the Secretary of State's letter to the district council of 27 April, make it crystal clear why the Secretary of State is satisfied that Stirling district council's planned expenditure for 1982–83 is excessive and unreasonable. The figures provided in that letter admit of no other interpretation. The district council's representations do not produce any reasons why its expenditure should be regarded by the House as other than excessive and unreasonable. For these reasons, I ask the House to approve the report.

Mr. Donald Dewar: The House listened with some admiration to the Minister. He is trying harder and harder in his new office as the weeks go by and there were distinct signs of animation as he tramped his way through his script. There were blinks of an ersatz political philosophy. He clearly has an ambition to be remembered as the Edmund Burke of Newton Mearns when he talks about the inter-relation between local and national democracy.
We should make it clear that the hon. Gentleman is not regarded as the author of our present misfortunes. Alter all, he was not in charge when the present legislation under which the report is made went on to the statute book. Indeed, he was probably tramping loyally but uncomprehendingly through the Lobby, and he must now try to maintain a largely untenable position in the pitched battles that have pock-marked the political scene in Scotland over the last two years as a result of the changes in section 5 of the 1966 Act.
I and my hon. Friends deplore the way in which section 5 of that Act has been taken out, dusted down and improved—I use those words with some cynicism—and


has appeared in our midst as a sort of instrument of oppression. One of the reasons why we object to its use on this occasion is that the consequence has been great damage to the relationship between central and local government, which has been exacerbated daily.
The House is entitled to ask about the Minister's sense of proportion. Yet again we are considering a report that causes much disillusion and bitterness. At the end of the day, the saving will be £1·2 million. In the totality of Scottish local government spending, the trouble and disruption to the system that the Minister is causing are out of all proportion to the benefits, even if one accepts the Tory view of local government finance and the level at which it should be set.
Although the figure is not large, it is of great significance to the small local authority that is the victim on this occasion. I do not suggest that what is happening here is petty and unimportant or a minor vendetta between the Government and Stirling district council. It illustrates important matters of principle, and it is of vital importance to the district council.
As the Secretary of State says in the letter attached to the papers, Stirling's rate support grant total this year is £2·5 million. The needs element is £1·7 million, and the cut will be £1·2 million. Therefore, we are eating away the majority of the needs element allocation and making a whopping hole in the total rate support grant available to the district council in 1982–83. All that comes on top of a massive cut of £700,000 in the previous year, and it is bound to have dramatic and drastic effects on the financing of Stirling district.
I know that some of my hon. Friends with a direct constituency interest hope to participate in the debate, but I have talked to two officials of Stirling district and they are worried that the council will have to postpone yet again, for the second year running, important developments of basic services that it believes are essential if it is to carry out its remit and provide the kind of services expected of a modern and progressive authority.
There is nothing essentially wicked about a plan to replace Stirling's library headquarters, which are inadequate and which do not meet even the most basic modern office requirements. There is nothing wrong with the appointment of a director of leisure and recreation. That appointment is presently in train, but I understand that it may have to be scrapped if the order is pushed to the ultimate by Ministers.
That illustrates the hypocrisy of what the Government are doing. I have spent much time in the last few months, as have many of my hon. Friends, serving on the Committee that has considered the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Bill, which will be reappearing in the House, probably for the last time, next week. That Bill implements the Stodart report, which says that district councils must become the sole authorities dealing with leisure and recreation and the only authorities involved in tourism.
Stirling is an area where leisure and recreation are of paramount importance. It is one of the main tourist centres in Scotland. When it does something as elementary as proposing to appoint a director in charge of these areas of responsibility, and tries to unfreeze the post of assistant recreation officer (tourism), which it could not fill last year, the Government have the brass neck to come to the

House and ask us to authorise a measure that will deprive the council of the resources that will allow it to shoulder those responsibilities. There will be serious consequences for a work force of about 900 people who are directly employed by the district council. Whatever euphemism is used, whether it be "rationalisation" or "slimming down", there will be unemployment and jobs will be lost as a result of the cuts.
It is ridiculous and a desperate piece of brassneck that we should be asked to consider the report on the very day when the unemployment figures for Scotland have come out. We have in Scotland at the moment 348,000 people out of work. Even on the seasonally adjusted figures, we are spiralling over 300,000—an unprecendented situation.
I accept that Oppositions are prone to be tempted to go in for the politics of denunciation—we sometimes overstate our case—but, in the light of the unemployment figures that we have seen, when a measure, however minor and modest, will clearly increase the job losses in Scotland over the next year, we are entitled to protest about the way in which we are being asked to add to the dispiriting prospects for employment in central Scotland and in Stirling district.
There are a whole battery of objections, all of them compelling and valid and all of them sufficient in themselves, never mind taking them collectively, to lead the House to reject the report.
The Minister has prayed in aid the indicative guidelines which very often, when it suits him, he says are not really compulsory and do not mean very much but are merely a kind of aide memoire for local authorities. But very often the guidelines are the justification for the punitive and repressive action which has become a hallmark of this Administration.
What is wrong with the guidelines is that they are based upon a fraudulent strategy, and the Minister knows it. There are 65 local authorities in Scotland and, on the 1982–83 figures, only eight of them have met or bettered the Minister's guidelines. Only three are below the guidelines with any comfort at all, and their outturn figures may prove them to have been optimistic.
The Minister has used the oldest trick in the game. He has defined the guidelines on an impossible basis and then complained when people have failed to achieve the impossible. He has allowed himself the luxury of stalking round the political scene in Scotland, arbitrarily picking out the targets that he wants to hit and justifying them as he could justify hitting Bearsden or Sutherland or Shetland or Skye—or Argyll, for example, which is well over 50 per cent. above the guidelines—on the basis that they have failed to do what he manifestly knows that no local authority in Scotland can do. The House should treat the report with contempt, as it borders on organised fraud.
I have read one document today which has come into my possession. It is not a new document; the Minister will be very familiar with it. I found it illuminating and it is one that we can fairly pray in aid. It is a statement from the Lothian regional council on the subject of its difficulties, but it came from the Conservative-controlled Lothian regional council after the recent May elections. It says that
the guidelines and other criteria used in assessing 'unreasonable and excessive spending' are seen by Lothian and the other major Scottish authorities as dauntingly severe. The present proposal to reduce the rate support grant to Lothian seems to be a particularly draconian product of the methodological system, and the sum specified … is inexplicably high and unmanageable'.


That is the view of a Conservative-controlled council, rightly speaking on behalf of all the major authorities, irrespective of their political complexion. They are saying, in effect, that the Government are being "dauntingly severe", that their methodology is wrong, and that their results are "inexplicably high and unmanageable".
If I cannot convince the Minister that there is something fundamentally wrong with his approach, surely he will listen to his political allies in the Lothian regional council. We object to the arbitrary element that has been introduced. There is no consistency and no logic in the way in which the Minister has proceeded in these matters. The damage to the system has been compounded almost every day by his own actions. I hope that he will not take it as personal if I say to him that at times I think that what has been said by the Scottish Office in these matters has dripped with hypocrisy.
I shall take one current example. The first page of the report contains the following sentence:
After careful consideration of representations in the light of the discussion at the meeting, the Secretary of State remains satisfied that Stirling's estimated expenses for 1982–83 are nevertheless excessive and unreasonable and is of the opinion that the needs element payable to stirling should be reduced.
That at best is palapable window dressing. I can think of some rather more uncharitable things to say. The meeting took place on 2 July, which was a Friday. We are told that the representations that were made at the meeting were carefully considered. However, on Monday we have the report printed and in the Vote Office, including this poppycock about "careful consideration". I do not believe that any fair-minded person could believe that there was "careful consideration" and that the representations were properly approached in an open mind. It is self-evident that the decision had been taken and the report printed, including the nonsense and hypocrisy about "careful consideration". This does the Minister no credit and it brings discredit upon the machinery of government. We should not go in for this nonsense.
If the Minister tells me that the report was not printed beforehand and that it was not a fait accompli, we are entitled to ask how much was paid in overtime to the printers, who presumably on the Sunday after this "careful consideration" burnt the midnight oil to get the document ready for The Scotsman on Monday morning. I do not believe a word of it and the Minister has a great deal to answer for.
I am not here to defend everything that Stirling district council has done or has not done. I do not claim that if I had been a Stirling district councillor I would have voted for everything in the present budget and that the council's priorities would have been the same as mine. However, the general principle of local democracy is one of great importance and not something that we can ignore.
I return to the statement of the Conservative Lothian region. It states that there must be a relationship which is
a partnership; and a partnership must be recognised as such by both sides. The council"—
that is, its council but it goes for any council—
is a democratically elected body responsible to its own electorate, which expects local priorities to be respected, and local needs to be treated with sensitivity.
By implication it states as clearly and as plainly as it could that the partnership was one-sided and that there was no reciprocal trust on the part of central Government. It implied that sensitivity and respect for local priorities were not forthcoming from central Government. When Lothian

region expressed those views it was right. It was reflecting views that are held across the board. That insensitivity and that jack-booted approach to what should be the preserve of local democracy has been shown in the report.
It is incredible that a Minister should say at this late stage in a Parliament, and with the air of one making a lordly concession, "I concede that local democracy has a part to play." I have no doubt that that will bring great relief to many who thought that the principle had been abandoned by the Government, but it should not be a last-minute grudging concession. Local government has an extremely important part to play. The central role of local authorities is to assess needs in their areas, to bear in mind the resources that are made available by central Government, which central Government have a right to vary, to decide what can be done by raising local resources to meet needs and to answer at the end of the day at the ballot box for what they have done. That is what "priorities" mean when Lothian region says that priorities have not been respected. That is what we mean when we talk about sensitivity and partnership.
For all the posing of the Minister, these fundamentals have been sacrificed to expediency and Treasury diktat. This mean report will have a devastating effect on the local authority and it represents a flaunting of all the principles that we believe to be important. Against that background we shall divide the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Mr. Michael Ancram.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There are three hon. Members who represent parts of Stirling district, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing), myself and the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn), who is not even present. In other words, two Labour members and one Tory Member represent parts of Stirling district. The majority of Scottish Members, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are Labour Members. Cannot priority he given in the debate to Labour Members who have turned up and who represent Stirling℄

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not usurp the responsibility of the Chair to select speakers. There wi11 be plenty of opportunities for the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members to speak if speeches are relatively short.

Mr. Michael Ancram: I shall keep your strictures in mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to delay the House for long.
As usual, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has made a persuasive case. All the cases that he makes are logical in themselves. The only problem is that the logic that he presents starts so often from the wrong premise and the conclusion that he reaches is rarely accurate. That is precisely what has happened tonight. The hon. Gentleman, in his reference to the document produced by the Conservative group in Lothian region, said that the relationship between local government and central Government was a partnership. What he has failed to point out is that it is not a relationship in which local government asks and national Government gives.
If, because it is democratically elected, local government has a right to ask the national Government to


treat it with certain respect, it also has an obligation to behave responsibly. The issue before the House is whether Stirling district has acted responsibly in terms of the expenditure that has been proposed. The criteria on which this is based is whether the expenditure is reasonable and not excessive. the hon. Member for Garscadden did not examine carefully the figures given by the Minister. The hon. Gentleman gave the impression that it would be impossible for Stirling to carry on in a civilised manner. He failed to mention that Stirling's expenditure is well beyond that of any comparable authority.
My hon. Friend the Minister gave the growth comparisons. He pointed out that the average growth for all district councils between 1978–79 and 1982–83 was 6·1 per cent. The average for Stirling was 41·6 per cent. He mentioned that this was much greater than the authorities put forward by Stirling for comparison. He failed to say that the growth comparisons put forward by Stirling over an equivalent period were of 9·6 per cent. and 41·6 per cent.

Mr. Tom Clarke: There have been several references to comparable authorities. I have spent some considerable time in local government. I do not recognise the expression. Will the hon. Gentleman give his definition of a comparable authority? Will he state the names of the comparable authorities?

Mr. Ancram: The comparable authorities to which I am referring now are those provided by Stirling district itself. They include the districts of Dundee and Aberdeen neither of which would I think, be viewed by the House as low-spending authorities. Even those authorities, in a comparable period, had a growth expenditure amounting to only a quarter of that proposed by Stirling district. On that basis alone, it is possible for the House to see the extent to which Stirling is out of line with district councils across Scotland.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Does my hon. Friend think that north-east Fife district might be comparable with Stirling district, a district under Conservative control, where the rates have increased by just one penny in two years?

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because it underlines the point that I am making. I make the point—and I am rather surprised that it has not come from the mouth of the hon. Member for Garscadden and other Opposition Members—that Stirling district's rate increase this year was only 10 per cent. I am a ratepayer in Lothian region and I know what phrases such as "only 10 per cent. or 5 per cent." mean, when there have been two, three or four years of high rates before that. Last year Stirling district had a rate increase of about 122 per cent., and 10 per cent. on top of that is considerably more than higher rate increases in other areas.
The picture that is being drawn—I return to what the hon. Member for Garscadden said about a partnership—is that of an authority that is not accidentally exceeding the guidelines, but deliberately deciding, as Lothian region did last year under Labour control, to take on the Government to break the Government's economic policy. That is not the type of partnership to which the hon.

Member for Garscadden referred. If that partnership is to exist it must be on the basis of co-operation between local and national Government.
Until Stirling can persuade me and other hon. Members on the Government Benches that that is what it is trying to achieve, I support the motion before the House. The hon. Member for Garscadden made a great point about the so-called concession made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. He said that the Secretary of State had reduced the amount of reduction for which he had originally asked. The Secretary of State has apparently accepted the arguments of the Lothian region Tories which were put forward in that document. We do not know that for a fact, but there is no motion before the House, dealing with Lothian and that leads me to believe that that is the case. If that is the case in Lothian, it is also true in Stirling regarding the reduction that has been made. It is not an arbitrary decision by the Secretary of State. He considered the matter after representations were made, and he has made a reduction.
I should like to say to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that what we are doing tonight and what we are endeavouring to achieve by the legislation is, as he said, to protect ratepayers. That is vitally important because of the burden that has been placed on ratepayers in Scotland over the past few years. I hope that he will accept that on the Government Benches we do not see this as other than a temporary substitute for rate reform. In the end the Government will have to grasp the nettle of rate reform and change the inequitable system that exists, to provide equity for ratepayers in Scotland in the future.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I know of no hon. Member who has done more damage to local government in Scotland than the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram). It is a great pity that he did not have the good sense to follow the example of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn), and stay out of the debate and not seek to defend what is indefensible. The Minister treated a serious matter in the most flippant manner. The way in which he approached the subject leaves a great deal to be desired.
It is important that we trace the history of what we are discussing tonight. As the Minister rightly said, it is the second order affecting Stirling district council, which is the only authority in Scotland to have a second order reducing the rate support grant applied to it. The first order was for a £1 million reduction. It was subsequently reduced to £700,000 by £300,000 being restored in February of the financial year 1981–82.
The council's outturn expenditure figure for 1981–82 appears to be £5,085,000. I assume that that was acceptable to the Government, because they reinstated the £300,000. If my assumption is correct, we must look at the proposed expenditure of the district council for 1982–83—the year with which the order is concerned. The increase is not 46 per cent. more than the 1981–82 figure, but £900,000 more than last year's outturn figure.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): Almost £1 million.

Mr. Ewing: The Under-Secretary displays his academic knowledge. I accept that £900,000 is almost £1


million. The increase is almost the same as that of Argyll, which is the hon. Gentleman's constituency. We know that the Under-Secretary is good at sums.
The 46 per cent. that was mentioned is the excess over the Government's guidelines. The proposed expenditure of the district council is reckoned by the Secretary of State to be 46 per cent. over his guidelines. But those guidelines have never been accepted by COSLA. They have always been disputed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) rightly criticised the Minister for the way in which the whole matter has been handled. The history must be put on the record, so that the people of Stirling understand the unfair and underhand way in which the Government have dealt with the matter.
I have with me the minutes of a meeting that took place between COSLA and the Government, one of whose representatives was the Under-Secretary who opened the debate, on 23 April this year when the RSG settlement was discussed. When the Secretary of State was pressed about which local authorities had been selected for the sort of treatment that we are discussing in this debate he said that the matter was still under consideration and no decisions had been reached. That is clearly on the record in the minutes of that meeting.
That meeting was held on Friday 23 April. On Tuesday morning 27 April, only four days, including Saturday and Sunday—when no one in the Scottish Office is at work—after the Secretary of State had said that no decision had been made, Stirling district council received the letter telling it that its RSG was to be reduced by £1·5 million.
On 2 July, when the representatives of Stirling district council went to New St. Andrew's House to see the Minister, it was worse than my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden said. Early in the morning of Monday 5 July, the chief executive of the council received a telephone message—even before the Scottish Grand Committee met in the Assembly Hall that day—telling him that the order was being laid in the House of Commons that day. That was the consideration that was given to the representations of Stirling district council.
The Minister will do himself a great disservice if he seeks to argue that the reduction from £1·5 million to £1·2 million was the result of the persuasion or consideration that he is supposed to have given. Let me tell him why the amount was reduced to £1·2 million. It was reduced because someone in the Scottish Office discovered that the £1·5 million represented 60 per cent. of the total amount of rate support grant to be given to Stirling district council, when the Government were claiming that its proposed expenditure was 46 per cent. above the Secretary of State's guidelines. When it was discovered that the £1·5 million represented 60 per cent. of the rate support grant, the figure was reduced to £1·2 million which represents 46 per cent. of the rate support grant for that council. The Minister knew that he could not justify a 60 per cent. reduction and argue at the same time that Stirling district council would exceed his guidelines by 46 per cent.
What did the Minister do? He came to the House and said that he would reduce Stirling district council's rate support grant allocation by £1·2 million, which represents 46 per cent. That happens to be the same percentage by which the Government claim that the council has exceeded the guidelines.
It is important to put the matter on the record for the benefit of the people of Stirling. As its Member of Parliament, I know the unrest that is felt in the city about rates. They are an emotive issue. No one likes paying rates, however high or low they may be. I accept that the rate increase there last year was about 122 per cent., and last year's figures appear to be acceptable to the Government because they have done nothing further to them. Indeed, they reinstated £300,000 to the council in February this year.
This year's rate increase is 4p in the pound, or 10 per cent. The Government are saying that it will be acceptable if Stirling district council is prepared to return the £1·2 million to the ratepayers. Incidentally, £1·2 million represents not 4p in the pound, but 6p in the pound. So the Government are saying that Stirling district council should not have increased its rates, but should have reduced them by 2p in the pound, in spite of the fact that over the years it has been a traditionally low-spending authority.
It is also important to understand in money terms what this means to Stirling district council. As my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden rightly said, it is proposed to take the £1·2 million from the needs element of the rate support grant. That will leave Stirling district council with only £523,000 of needs element.
Whatever the Under-Secretary may say, that simply is not sufficient to meet the requirements of Stirling district council. I hope that he will justify the deduction of £l·2 million in a more constructive manner than when he introduced the order.
If the Under-Secretary finds that local authorities are having great difficulty in accepting what the Government say about negotiations and their sincerity, he only has himself to blame in view of my comments on the dates of the meetings and the way in which the whole matter has been handled.
The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary's predecessor, now the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in whose footsteps I hope that the Minister will not follow, have done a great deal of damage to the relationship between local government and central Government in Scotland. That will take a long time to repair.
The reduction in the rate support grant will have serious effects on Stirling district council. We are talking about a district that has been devastated by Government decisions. Stirling university has been subjected to savage cuts as a result of the Government's directive to the University Grants Committee. Cape Insulation, one of the biggest employers in Stirling, has reduced its workforce not because of any rate burden but because the Government abolished the direct grant for home insulation. John Player and Son Ltd. is closing down altogether. It went out of its way to say that that closure had nothing whatever to do with rates, but was the direct result of people's response to the health education programme in smoking less.
The Minister had better not tell us that all the closures and redundancies are the result of rates. It is now well known that in manufacturing industry the element of rates in the cost of the manufacturing industry is no more than 0·06 per cent. The biggest cost that manufacturing industry has to bear is the Government's interest charges and insurance surcharge.

Mr. John MacKay: What did the Labour Government do?

Mr. Ewing: The Under-Secretary with responsibility for health should not parrot what he hears other people say. The Labour Government introduced the insurance surcharge but the Government substantially increased it in the Budget 18 months ago. If Ministers do not know that, they should do some homework.
All the Government-imposed measures have had a much more serious effect on industry and commerce in Stirling than anything done by Stirling district council in relation to rates. Stirling district council will be the victim of the report tonight in a way that I am sure that the Minister does not comprehend.
The Minister made some play about comparatives. The comparatives that have been used are interesting. For example, Kyle and Carrick starts from a much higher spending base than Stirling district council started from or has ever been on. In 1978–79 it spent £64·5 per head of the population and in 1982–83 it proposes to spend £66·1 per head of the population. If one begins on a reasonably high spending base—I do not suggest that it is astronomically high—it is fairly easy to remain on it.
The Government have failed to take account of the fact that Stirling is traditionally a low spending authority. The Government appear to believe that a low spending authority will always be a low spending authority. The Government do not want to make any transitional arrangements for allowing a district council such as Stirling to move from a low spending base to a reasonable spending base to meet the needs of the community.
Services in the Stirling district need to be improved. About 13,000 out of the 29,000 people in the area live in St. Ninians. Recently a community centre was built there. Another community centre will not go ahead because of the Minister's decision. The first library outside the main library was built at St. Ninians. It was decided to extend that project to other areas of Stirling, but that will go by the board because of the Minister's decision.
Unemployment in Stirling is very high indeed. The figures for June show that in Stirling 4,104 people were unemployed, among whom were 921 young people.
I hope that the Minister will, for once, be sincere and say that he is still open to negotiation, even if the order is approved. Whether the Minister likes it or not, neither he nor the Secretary of State have given any consideration to the pleas of Stirling district council. The timing of the orders makes it impossible for such consideration to have been given. The dates involved make it impossible for the Minister to have considered the matter properly.
I hope that more consideration will be given to the pleas of Stirling district council so that its circumstances can be taken into account.
Rates are not popular. I have friends in every part of Stirling who are not content with the way that rates systems have developed, but that is not a sound argument for deceiving people into believing in an easy answer. Services have to be paid for. We shall never be able to pay for them under the proposed arrangements.

Mr. Bill Walker: I, too, am concerned about the relations between central Government and local government. I am equally concerned about the relations between local authorities. The hon. Member for

Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that Stirling is one of the main tourist areas of Scotland. I do not disagree, but Perth and Kinross also form a main tourist area.
Central Government bodies and regional authorities have to pay district rates and that is why, among many other reasons, central Government must take an interest in the level of rates. There is a knock-on effect on regional authorities, which can be substantial, when district authorities increase their rates.
The hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) suggested that there was no relationship between rates and employment. He used as a measure the percentage in manufacturing industry. Of course, I must cite the hon. Member for Garscadden. In tourism, rates for hotels and shops form a substantial part of the expenditure incurred by big employers. The hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth said that Stirling district was a low-spending authority. I shall compare expendiure in Stirling district council with the average figure for district councils, and then with Perth and Kinross district. [Interruption.] The figures that I give will be in pounds per head of the population.
In 1978–79 Stirling district council's expenditure per head of the population was £53·4. The average figure for district councils was £48·8, but the figure for Perth and Kinross disrict was £42·5. In 1979–80, expenditure in Stirling district was £56·1, the average for district councils was £50·6 and Perth and Kinross achieved £44.

Mr. Tom Clarke: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Walker: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have given the figures, because they are all related and I may lose my thread if I stop now.[Interruption.] In 1980–81 Stirling district council had a figure of £62, the average for district councils was £50·7 and the figure for Perth and Kinoss—hon. Members should note—was £40·7. That was a reduction from the figure in 1979–80.

Mr. William McKelvey: rose—

Mr. Walker: I shall give way in a moment, but I wish to complete the figures. I am being interrupted because Opposition Members do not want to hear the figures. If they do not like the facts they make noises.
In 1981–82 the figure for Stirling district was £63·2, the average figure for district councils was £50·5, but the figure for Perth and Kinross district was £42·9. In 1982–83, the figure for Stirling district was £75·6, the average was £51·8 and the figure for Perth and Kinross district showed another reduction, this time to £42·7.
I shall draw the attention of hon. Members to the percentage change between 1978–79 and 1982–83. For Stirling district the figure is 41·6; for the average district council it is 6·1 per cent. and for Perth and Kinross it is 0·5. Between 1981–82 and 1982–83 the change is 19·6 per cent. for Stirling district council, 2·6 per cent. for the average district council and minus 0·5 per cent. for Perth and Kinross. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Clarke) if he will note that Perth and Kinross district council has clearly shown that in that period a district council can reduce its rates in some years. However, the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) said that Stirling was a noted low-spending authority.

Mr. Tom Clarke: So that the House can have a greater appreciation of the quality of life in Perth and Kinross, will the hon. Gentleman say what are the average rents in his district? Will he say what the grant in terms of the needs element is? What is the cost for the provost sending Christmas cards with his photograph to all his friends? Will he answer those questions so that we can have a full understanding of those matters?

Mr. Walker: If the provost of Perth can afford to send cards, yet the district authority can maintain a rates expenditure based on per head of population of the figure that I have given, that shows what can be done with prudent expenditure. With regard to council house rents in Perth, Perth has always pursued a policy of—

Mr. John Maxton: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that the debate was on the Stirling district report, not on the Perth and Kinross district council. The hon. Gentleman was making some comparisons earlier, but he is now talking entirely about Perth and Kinross and not about Stirling.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was replying to a question asked by the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Clarke). Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that the debate is about Stirling.

Mr. Walker: I started my speech by talking about the relations between the Government and local government and between local authorities. I can show how the relations between local authorities are affected only if, by picking up points made by Opposition Members, I consider the suggestion that Stirling district is a low-spending authority. I thought that I would demonstrate what I judged a low-spending authority to be. I made the comparisons. That is a valid way to show why the Government suggested that there must be a reduction in the planned expenditure of Stirling district. Perth and Kinross is the adjacent authority. We are the authority next door. We have a great interest in what happens across the border.

Mr. Henderson: When my hon. Friend makes more comparisons, is he planning to draw attention to the fact that if certain local authorities grossly overspend in a wholly unreasonable way, there is less money in the pot for other local authorities that have taken great care of their ratepayers' money?

Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It saved me making the point that I was about to make.
I shall conclude by drawing attention to where the matter of the charge on the rates impinges on the problems of jobs and job creation. In Stirling district the rate poundage for 1981–82 will be 40p, but in Perth and Kinross it will be 12p. One does not have to be a mathematician to work out that that must be a colossal oncost on employers in hotels and shops, who provide substantial employment, as the hon. Member for Garscadden said, who knows all about tourism. Tourism is a big employer in Perth and Kinross and in Stirling. That is why more firms are now clamouring to come to Perth and Kinross and are leaving the high-spending authorities such as the Stirling district council. The Government are merely trying to help the ratepayers in Stirling district by

ensuring first that there is lower expenditure and, second, with the co-operation of the local authority, that the reduction will be returned to the ratepayers.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: There have been three speeches so far from the Tory Benches, one from a junior Minister who is just a mouthpiece of the Secretary of State, one from the chairman of the Tory Party who was hot even elected by the Tory Party in Scotland but was "elected" by the patronage of the Prime Minister in Downing Street, and the third from the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) who cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, claim to represent either the people of Scotland or the people of Stirling district by election or by patronage, and thank heaven for that.
It is clear that, despite all of their protestations, the report represents a concerted campaign by the Tory Party in Scotland against a Labour controlled local authority. It is also an attack on the people of Stirling district. Last year, the Tory Secretary of State robbed Stirling district council of £700,0DO. The robbery is even greater this year as he plans to reduce the rate support grant by £1·2 million. None of them hay succeeded in justifying that reduction.
Last year, the Secretary of State tried to justify the reduction of rate support grant by saying that Stirling district council had imposed an abnormally high rate increase. That claim cannot be made this year. The increase is only about 10 per cent.—roughly the level of inflation. In money terms, the increase is 4 pence in the pound—the average for all district councils in Scotland. The Secretary of State's own statistics in appendix D give 14·3 per cent. as the percentage increase for all district councils and 14·7 per cent. for all local authorities in Scotland. Therefore, no one could argue that the percentage increase of the rate poundage is well above the Scottish average. It is well below that average. The rate poundage, even currently is by no means the highest in Scotland.

Mr. Ancram: rose—

Mr. Canavan: No, I shall not give way to anyone unless he can claim to represent the people of Stirling district.
The Secretary of State may argue that the rates in Scotland are generally too high. I admit that high rate increases are unpopular. It is interesting to note that even the present Government have failed to produce a constructive alternative to the rates. Perhaps they would be better if they turned their attention to that.
I draw attention to a report by Dr. Midwinter who is a lecturer in administration at the University of Strathclyde. He referred to central region in which Stirling district Lies. In conclusion he said:
Central region is not an overspending authority in relative terms but has nevertheless incurred a substantial rate increase of 25 per cent. Central Government decisions were a major cause of those increases. II is time for a change of course.

Mr. Ancram: rose—

Mr. Canavan: I shall not give way. If the hon. Gentleman would stand for election in Stirling district, either at local or parliamentary level, I might give way to him. The chairman of the Tory Party in Scotland has had more than his fair share of the debate already.
The Minister has still not answered my point about the statistics on page four of Stirling district council's official


reply. I shall leave him a few minutes at the end of my speech to answer that point. I understand that the source of that was the rating review and I should welcome his comments on that.
All local authorities are different. Stirling has a population of 80,000 which is spread over 800 square miles. Most of the area is rural and the district council has gone out of its way to try to develop tourism. In the light of the Stodart report and the increased expenditure that it recommended, it seems strange that the Government are putting more responsibility on the district council while robbing it of the funds to put those statutory responsibilities into effect.
The present district council, Labour-controlled since 1980, inherited a great deal of neglect and deficiency as a result of the miserable budgets of the previous Tory-controlled council. Some hon. Members may regard certain district council functions such as leisure and recreation services as in some way secondary or nonessential, but there is an increased demand for those services—not surprisingly, in view of the high unemployment, especially among young people in the area. It would be sheer madness for any hon. Member to regard those functions as peripheral activities.
Stirling district council certainly does not take that view. It helped to set up a district sports council, providing grants for it and for local voluntary organisations. It also tries to levy only a minimum charge for the use of facilities such as football fields. The swimming pool in Stirling town was opened before regionalisation and as a regular visitor I know what a tremendous asset it is to the local community. The number of staff is now smaller than it was when the pool was opened and sufficient staff cannot be employed for the new conditioning room—a type of gymnasium that was recently opened. With great regret, the charges have also had to be increased, although not by so much as the Tory Government would have liked. All this gives some idea of the difficulties that the council faces.
Reference has been made to libraries and to the fact that it is desirable that new library headquarters be established. The staffing of the Stirling library department is 14 per cent. below minimum standards. Essential requirements are for a stock editor and a children's library for one of the outlying areas. The planning department also pointed out in the submission given to the Minister at the meeting that extra staff are needed to provide for the development of tourism, recreation and access to the countryside. Moreover, although housing expenditure does not come directly into this matter, housing is still the most essential of all the district council's functions and it is indirectly related in that the rate fund contribution to the housing revenue account for the current year is less than last year, so if the cuts are applied they may indirectly affect rent levels.
What services would the Minister cut? Would he cut the children's library facilities in rural areas? Would he make the amateur football teams pay higher fees to play on a Saturday afternoon? Would he call for further decreases in the rate fund contribution to the housing revenue account, which would inevitably lead to higher rents? Which of those options does he wish to impose on the district council? [HON. MEMBERS: "All of them."]
Perhaps the Minister would prefer to cut jobs. At present, the district council is a major employer providing about 900 jobs in an area in which unemployment is

already well over 4,000. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) referred to the relationship between rate levels and unemployment. Not long ago in an official parliamentary reply the Government stated that as a percentage of the costs of manufacturing industry rates accounted for 0·66 per cent.—less than 1 per cent.
The detrimental effects of Government policy on manufacturing industry and indeed on the service industries are far greater than any unfortunate effects of rate increases. I refer, for example, to the loss of development area status in the Stirling area. The impending loss of 500 jobs at the Player's factory is partly due to the taxation imposed by the Government.
The loss of jobs, the further loss of jobs and the loss to the University of Stirling's economy are due to the direct effect of the Government's cuts. Despite the protestations of Conservative hon. Members, I am forced to conclude that there is a political vendetta on the part of the Government against a Labour-controlled local authority. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish."] The hon. Gentleman says "rubbish", but although he may not know Stirling district very well the Secretary of State has one of his homes in Stirling district. It may be that at all these Tory tea parties and cocktail parties the local Tories lobby the Secretary of State and say "What about it, George? Get the boot in to these local lefties". That is what is happening. It is a conspiracy between the Secretary of State and the local Tory establishment to put the boot into the local Labour councillors and the people that they represent. It is noticeable that the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) has not bothered to be here tonight. Having failed to win his case in the Seychelles he now fails to defend the excellent case of his constituents in places like Aberfoyle, Callendar and Dunblane.
The Secretary of State is using his traditional jackboot dictatorial tactics to destroy local democracy.
The consultations have been an absolute farce. As my hon. Friends pointed out, a so-called consultation meeting was held with the district council on Friday, but the order was tabled on Monday morning. The Government must be honest. The Secretary of State's mind was made up before the meeting was held.
What is at stake is much bigger than the £1·2 million. It cannot be measured in money terms. Money cannot buy the important principle of local democracy that is at stake. Conservative hon. Members sneer at overspending by local authorities, but local government has a far better record of accountability on expenditure than has central Government. At the end of the day it is up to the electorate. Adequate opportunity is given to the electorate to decide whether a council has been reckless or has spent excessively or unreasonably. The Secretary of State is undermining local democracy when he seeks to intervene in local decision-making.
The Stirling district councillors have a mandate from the local people. The Secretary of State for Scotland does not. Indeed, the Secretary of State has no mandate from the people of Scotland. He is behaving like the son of a medieval viscount, riding roughshod over the wishes of the people of Scotland, and in particular the people of Stirling district.
If the House is daft enough to approve the order, which undermines local democracy and is an attack on a basic principle, it will be a sign of the inherent lack of democracy in this place. The Government and their supporters should bear that in mind. The people will see


what is going on. The Government's action tonight will bring about more disrepute and dishonour on the wicked Tory Government and on the so-called Parliamentary democracy which they supposedly represent and defend.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: On a point of order. There are six minutes left for this debate. Is it reasonable for this debate to be a private fight between the two main parties? Cannot the voice of reason be heard?

Mr. Allan Stewart: We shall be interested to see which Lobby the right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon) goes through tonight.
It was perhaps inevitable that the debate would end with the conspiracy theories of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). He said a lot about democracy, but he will face the test of the electorate as well, and we shall see how he gets on as Labour candidate in Stirling county at the next general election.
The key difference between the speeches of Labour Members and my hon. Friends was that Labour Members made great play of all sorts of general factors such as the relationship between central and local government, unemployment, the national insurance surcharge and so on. On the other hand, my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) and for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) talked about the figures in relation to Stirling district. That is what the debate is about.

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it possible that the Minister is feeling slightly unwell and that a few minutes more sitting down might give him time to recover?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure the House wants to hear the Minister's reply, and points of order such as that take up his time.

Mr. Stewart: Of which, Mr. Deputy Speaker, very little is left.
Labour Members suggested that somehow these figures are unreasonable and that there will be disastrous consequences for Stirling district. After the £.1·2 million deduction is made, Stirling's excess over the guidelines will be 20 per cent. The excess of comparable authorities will be 13 per cent., and the excess of the comparable authorities chosen by Stirling will be 9·16 per cent. Expenditure per head in Stirling after the deduction will be E60·70—more than comparable authorities and more than Stirling's choice of comparable authorities. Precisely the same arguments apply to the growth figures.
Labour Members have, significantly, not sought to defend Stirling's budget. The figures are clear and indisputable. No rational case has been made against them, either from Stirling district or the Opposition. I ask the House to vote for common sense, for reason in Scottish local government expenditure and for the order.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 94, Noes 42.

Division No. 285]
[10.15 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Deakins, Eric


Adams, Allen
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Allaun, Frank
Dewar, Donald


Alton, David
Dixon, Donald


Anderson, Donald
Dobson, Frank


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dormand, Jack


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dubs, Alfred


Ashton, Joe
Duffy, A. E. P.


Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)
Dunnett, Jack


Bagier, Gordon AT.
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Eadie, Alex


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Eastham, Ken


Beith, A. J.
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Bidwell, Sydney
English, Michael


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Evans, John (Newton)


Bottomley, Rt Hon A. (M'b'ro)
Ewing, Harry


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Faulds, Andrew


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Field, Frank


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Fitch, Alan


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Flannery, Martin


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Buchan, Norman
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Forrester, John


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Foster, Derek


Campbell, Ian
Foulkes, George


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Canavan, Dennis
Freud, Clement


Cant, R. B.
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Carmichael, Neil
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
George, Bruce


Cartwright, John
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Ginsburg, David


Clarke, Thomas C'b'dge, A'rie
Golding, John


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Gourlay, Harry


Cohen, Stanley
Graham, Ted


Coleman, Donald
Grant, John (Islington C)


Conlan, Bernard
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Cook, Robin F.
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Cowans, Harry
Hardy, Peter


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Crawshaw, Richard
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Crowther, Stan
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Cryer, Bob
Heffer, Eric S.


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Dalyell, Tam
Home Robertson, John


Davidson, Arthur
Homewood, William


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Hooley, Frank


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Hoyle, Douglas





Huckfield, Les
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Richardson, Jo


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Janner, Hon Greville
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


John, Brynmor
Robertson, George


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Rooker, J. W.


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Roper, John


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Kerr, Russell
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Kilfedder, James A.
Rowlands, Ted


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Ryman, John


Lambie, David
Sever, John


Lamond, James
Sheerman, Barry


Leadbitter, Ted
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Leighton, Ronald
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Short, Mrs Renée


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Litherland, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Silverman, Julius


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Skinner, Dennis


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


McCartney, Hugh
Snape, Peter


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Soley, Clive


McElhone, Frank
Spearing, Nigel


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Spriggs, Leslie


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Stallard, A. W.


McKelvey, William
Steel, Rt Hon David


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


McMahon, Andrew
Stoddart, David


McNally, Thomas
Strang, Gavin


McWilliam, John
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Marks, Kenneth
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Tilley, John


Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)
Tinn, James


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Torney, Tom


Maxton, John
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Maynard, Miss Joan
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Meacher, Michael
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


Mikardo, Ian
Wainwright, R. (Colne V)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Watkins, David


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Weetch, Ken


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Welsh, Michael


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
White, Frank R.


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Whitehead, Phillip


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Whitlock, William


Newens, Stanley
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


O'Halloran, Michael
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)


O'Neill, Martin
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)


Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Park, George
Winnick, David


Parker, John
Woodall, Alec


Parry, Robert
Woolmer, Kenneth


Pavitt, Laurie
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Pendry, Tom
Wright, Sheila


Penhaligon, David
Young, David (Bolton E)


Pitt, William Henry



Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Prescott, John
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Mr. George Morton.


Race, Reg



Radice, Giles



NOES


Adley, Robert
Aspinwall, Jack


Aitken, Jonathan
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)


Alexander, Richard
Atkins, Rober (Preston N)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)


Ancram, Michael
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)


Arnold, Tom
Banks, Robert






Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bendall, Vivian
Forman, Nigel


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh


Best, Keith
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fry, Peter


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Blackburn, John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Blaker, Peter
Goodhew, Sir Victor


Body, Richard
Goodlad, Alastair


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gorst, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gow, Ian


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bowden, Andrew
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gray, Hamish


Braine, Sir Bernard
Greenway, Harry


Bright, Graham
Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)


Brinton, Tim
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Grist, Ian


Brooke, Hon Peter
Grylls, Michael


Brotherton, Michael
Gummer, John Selwyn


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Hamilton, Hon A.


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hampson, Dr Keith


Buck, Antony
Hannam, John


Budgen, Nick
Haselhurst, Alan


Bulmer, Esmond
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Burden, Sir Frederick
Hawkins, Sir Paul


Butcher, John
Hawksley, Warren


Butler, Hon Adam
Hayhoe, Barney


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Heddle, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Henderson, Barry


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Hill, James


Chapman, Sydney
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Churchill, W. S.
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Hooson, Tom


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hordern, Peter


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clegg, Sir Walter
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cope, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Corrie, John
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Costain, Sir Albert
Irvine, Bryant Godman


Cranborne, Viscount
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Critchley, Julian
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Crouch, David
Jessel, Toby


Dickens, Geoffrey
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dorrell, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Dover, Denshore
Kaberry, Sir Donald


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Durant, Tony
Kimball, Sir Marcus


Dykes, Hugh
King, Rt Hon Tom


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Knight, Mrs Jill


Eggar, Tim
Knox, David


Elliott, Sir William
Lamont, Norman


Eyre, Reginald
Lang, Ian


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Fairgrieve, Sir Russell
Latham, Michael


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Lawrence, Ivan


Farr, John
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Fell, Sir Anthony
Lee, John


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)




Luce, Richard
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Lyell, Nicholas
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


McCrindle, Robert
Rossi, Hugh


Macfarlane, Neil
Rost, Peter


MacGregor, John
Royle, Sir Anthony


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Scott, Nicholas


Madel, David
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Major, John
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Marland, Paul
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Marlow, Antony
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shepherd, Richard


Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Shersby, Michael


Mates, Michael
Silvester, Fred


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Sims, Roger


Mawby, Ray
Skeet, T. H. H.


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Smith, Dudley


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mayhew, Patrick
Speller, Tony


Mellor, David
Spence, John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Squire, Robin


Mills, Sir Peter (Wast Devon)
Stainton, Keith


Miscampbell, Norman
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stanley, John


Moate, Roger
Steen, Anthony


Monro, Sir Hector
Stevens, Martin


Montgomery, Fergus
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Moore, John
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Morgan, Geraint
Stradling Thomas, J.


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Tapsell, Peter


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Mudd, David
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Murphy, Christopher
Thompson, Donald


Myles, David
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Neale, Gerrard
Thornton, Malcolm


Needham, Richard
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nelson, Anthony
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Neubert, Michael
Trippier, David


Newton, Tony
Trotter, Neville


Normanton, Tom
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Nott, Rt Hon John
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Onslow, Cranley
Viggers, Peter


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Waddington, David


Osborn, John
Wakeham, John


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Walker, B. (Perth)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Wall, Sir Patrick


Parris, Matthew
Waller, Gary


Pattie, Geoffrey
Walters, Dennis


Pawsey, James
Ward, John


Percival, Sir Ian
Warren, Kenneth


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Watson, John


Pink, R. Bonner
Wells, Bowen


Pollock, Alexander
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Porter, Barry
Wheeler, John


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Proctor, K. Harvey
Whitney, Raymond


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Wickenden, Keith


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wilkinson, John


Rathbone, Tim
Williams, D. (Montgomery)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Winterton, Nicholas


Renton, Tim
Wolfson, Mark


Rhodes James, Robert
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon



Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Tellers for the Noes:


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Mr. Carol Mather

Division No. 286]
[2.28 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Ancram, Michael
Benyon, Thomas (A'don)


Arnold, Tom
Berry, Hon Anthony


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Biffen, Rt Hon John





Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Moate, Roger


Blackburn, John
Morgan, Geraint


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Bright, Graham
Murphy, Christopher


Brinton, Tim
Myles, David


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Neale, Gerrard


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Nelson, Anthony


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Neubert, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Newton, Tony


Colvin, Michael
Normanton, Tom


Cope, John
Osborn, John


Cranborne, Viscount
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Dorrell, Stephen
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Pollock, Alexander


Dover, Denshore
Proctor, K. Harvey


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Renton, Tim


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Goodlad, Alastair
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Sims, Roger


Hamilton, Hon A.
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hannam, John
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Hawkins, Sir Paul
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Hawksley, Warren
Stanbrook, Ivor


Heddle, John
Stevens, Martin


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Stradling Thomas, J.


Lang, Ian
Thompson, Donald


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Trippier, David


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Viggers, Peter


Lyell, Nicholas
Waddington, David


MacGregor, John
Waller, Gary


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Watson, John


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Wells, Bowen


Major, John
Wheeler, John


Mather, Carol
Wickenden, Keith


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Wolfson, Mark


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Mayhew, Patrick



Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Mr. Peter Brooke and


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Mr. David Hunt.


NOES


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Home Robertson, John


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Lambie, David


Canavan, Dennis
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Carmichael, Neil
McCartney, Hugh


Clarke, Thomas C'b'dge,
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


A'drie
McKelvey, William


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Cook, Robin F.
Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)


Cryer, Bob
Maxton, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Milian, Rt Hon Bruce


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
O'Neill, Martin


Dewar, Donald
Parry, Robert


Dormand, Jack
Prescott, John


Eadle, Alex
Robertson, George


Ewing, Harry
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Foulkes, George
Skinner, Dennis


George, Bruce
Strang, Gavin


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Welsh, Michael


Hardy, Peter
Whitlock, William


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter



Haynes, Frank
Tellers for the Noes:


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe and

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Report on the Rate Support Grant Reduction (Stirling District) 1982–83, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th July, be approved.

French Overseas Departments' Rum

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6168/82 concerning French Overseas Departments' rum and supports the Government's efforts to seek a reduction in the discriminatory taxation of spirit drinks which at present obtains in France.
Document 6168/82 is a Commission proposal for a Council decision concerning "traditional" rum produced in the French overseas departments. This product is a dark, heavy rum which has a much stronger flavour—some might describe it as pungent—than the brands with which we, in Britain, are familiar. Indeed, its characteristics tend to limit its appeal and, not surprisingly, the main market is to be found in France and the French overseas departments.
This rum has long enjoyed highly preferential rates of taxation in France which place it in a favourable position in relation not only to imported spirit drinks like Scotch whisky and gin, but also in relation to other spirit drinks produced in France, such as cognac and brandies. It is now clear, however, that this preference is illegal under the Treaty of Rome unless and until special provision is made for it under article 227 of the Treaty of Rome. That is the purpose of the proposal in the document before this House.
Article 227 of the Treaty of Rome enables special treatment to be accorded to the French overseas departments. Certain provisions of the treaty were immediately applicable to the French overseas departments as they stood whilst others, notably on taxation, were to be subject to specific Council decisions. Such decisions were to be made within a two year time limit. A ruling of the European Court of Justice in case 148/77 made it clear that, in the absence of such decisions, the provisions of the treaty would automatically apply as they stood to the French overseas departments after the expiry of the two years although the Council retained the power to take decisions subsequently.
This means that, in the case of taxation, article 95 of the treaty is now applicable unless and until it is modified under article 227 in respect of French overseas departments' products. Article 95 requires member States to tax domestic and imported Community products equally and forbids the use of taxation to afford indirect protection to domestic products.
If adopted, the decision proposed by the Commission would allow the French, notwithstanding article 95, to continue to grant preferential tax treatment to this "traditional" rum but subject to two important provisos. First, the degree of protection afforded in metropolitan France must never exceed that obtaining when the decision is introduced. At present, the tax payable on traditional rum is 57·5 per cent. of the normal rate of tax payable on cereal based spirits, which is the highest tax category.
Second, the volume of French overseas departments' rum subject to preferential treatment in metropolitan France would be restricted by a quota based on the annual average of consumption in the 10 years preceding entry into force of the Council decision. The Commission's stated plan is to review the arrangements in the fifth year of operation and thereafter as necessary.
The Commission, and France, claim that there are important economic and social reasons which make it vital for some protection to be granted to this product in view of the economic importance of the industry to the overseas departments. We do, indeed, need to take account of the fact that these departments, while forming an integral part of France, are nevertheless developing regions with special problems akin, to those for example of Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean.
It is certainly the case that French overseas departments' rum is uncompetitive and, without aid, could not easily find a profitable outlet. This is doubtless why France has been prepared to concede it a preference over other French as well as imported spirits. What is less evident is whether this provision alone, without careful thought for the long-term future of the industry or of the islands, represents the best solution for the islanders and for the Community. This aspect would merit further deliberation in Brussels.
More important, however, is the question of principle which arises over any measure which might erode article 95 of the treaty. The principle which this enshrines, of equality of treatment for taxation between domestic and imported produce, is of vital importance to our spirit drinks industry which depends so much on export markets. That industry regrettably confronts trade barriers of different kinds in many parts of the world, but it is quite unacceptable that it should have to face discrimination even within the European Community. Yet that nevertheless remains the case in more than one member State.
In France, successive French Governments have operated a tax system, which has not only protected French overseas departments rum but also aided domestic, wine-based spirits against imported cereal-based spirits. As long ago as February 1980 the European Court of Justice ruled that the French tax structure discriminated unfairly against cereal-based spirits, such as whisky and gin. Unhappily, the discrimination continues, albeit at a much reduced level. A tax of 7,655 francs per hectolitre of pure alcohol is levied on Scotch whisky and gin, but lower rates obtain for non-cereal-based spirits—for example cognac is charged at 7,015 francs per hectolitre of pure alcohol. "Traditional" rum is taxed at the much lower rate of 4,405 francs per hectolitre of pure alcohol.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has left the Commission in no doubt about our concern that tax discrimination still exists in France against grain-based spirits in spite of a ruling of the European Court of Justice. He has repeatedly urged the Commission to take speedy action to end it. Certainly we would wish to see the principles of article 95 fully observed before we could even contemplate any form of derogation.
There is another significant aspect which should not be overlooked. That is the special position which has been established in European market for rum imported into the Community under the Lomé convention by traditional Commonwealth suppliers such as the Bahamas, Guyana, Trinidad and Jamaica. One of the achievements of which the Community, and certainly the United Kingdom, can feel most satisfaction is the provision made by the Lomé convention for preferential access to the Community markets for products from the African, Caribbean and Pacific States, commonly referred to as the ACPs, in order to maintain the substantial traditional trading links with


them. Under Lomé, ACP rum is granted access free of common customs duty to the Community, subject to quota. Much of this trade is with the United Kingdon and it is of course of the utmost importance to ensure that those favourable conditions of access are fully maintained in the future.
The Government's attitude to the Commission's specific proposals will be influenced by the comments made during this debate, to which I look forward with the greatest interest I can assure the House that the Government will in any event continue to press the Commission to fulfil its obligations to ensure that the provisions of the Treaty of Rome are fully implemented. I am sure that we can rely on the full support of the House in so doing.
Whatever the other considerations, there could be no question of our accepting the proposal in the document that is before the House while the member State concerned continues to defy the rulings of the Court of Justice. The Government wish to take into account the views of the Committee which has been considering the matter in another place.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: It is a pleasant change to follow the hon. Lady in a debate on excise duty. I cannot resist observing that at a time when we have a record number of six Treasury Ministers, it appears that they have all retired from the field, no doubt exhausted by their labours on the Finance Bill, and left it to the hon. Lady. It is a particularly pleasant change to follow the hon. Lady, because she has shown more spirit in defence of the British distilling industry than we have seen from all the Treasury Ministers added together in the past six months.
As the background to a debate in which we are invited to comment on a derogation for a partner in the Common Market, it is appropriate to record at the outset that over the past few months the British Government have been punctilious in observing their liabilities and obligations in respect of excise duty under the EEC rules.
In the past four months since the Budget alone, we can see three examples of the way in which our excise law has been altered specifically and solely because of our EEC obligations. The first is the nature of the duty increases in the Budget which, once again, penalised those who drink beer. Under this Government the duty on beer has nearly doubled, which is a much greater increase than that in the duty on wine. The whole House understands why the Government have chosen that set of priorities. They are under pressure from the EEC to bring the duty into line with the alcoholic content of beverages, so that working men may be obliged to drink foreign wine rather than domestic beer if the price signals can be rigged appropriately.
Secondly, the Government proposed in the Finance Bill to dispense with the three-year maturation requirement for spirits sold in the United Kingdom. I am happy that in Committee we were able to persuade the Government to put that proposal into cold storage, but that, too, was embarked upon only because of EEC requirements.
Thirdly, an order which went through a Committee recently provided for the deferment of duty on certain imports, of which the most notable was foreign lager, which will improve the terms on which that lager competes in our market with domestic-produced lager.
That is a handful of illustrations drawn front only the past four months. Some of us may doubt whether the Government have been entirely wise in striving so officiously to fulfil to the letter their EEC obligations in respect of excise duty, but no one, either in this country or in any other member State, can be in doubt about the Government's punctilious observations of their obligations.
Some of our partners make a remarkable contrast to the behaviour of the British Government. Those partners do not display a similar punctilious observation of their obligations. That is particularly true of the French. Whisky still faces a discriminatory tax in France, despite a court judgment on the whisky industry's behalf over two years ago. Indeed, the French Government celebrated the second anniversary of that judgment in February this year by restoring a discriminatory element in the tax on, whisky, as opposed to that on brandy produced from wine within France.
That matter must be of concern to every hon. Member, but particularly to hon. Members, such as myself, who represent Scottish constituencies, because the whisky industry is in a grievous state. It is badly affected by two distinctive features of monetarist economics—the high exchange rate, which has endangered many of its traditional export markets, and high interest rates, which impose a particularly heavy burden on an industry which produces a product which has to be warehoused for a minimum of three years and frequently, in the case of many malt whiskies, for well over a decade.
In the past three years we have seen a dramatic deterioration in the condition of the industry. In the past year alone, there has been a drop of 25 per cent. in the output of the malt whisky distilleries and in the past two years about 4,500 jobs have been shed in the industry. Many of those jobs were in small communities in the Highlands and islands where the loss of jobs make a proportionately greater impact on the local community than it would in many an urban environment.
Despite the difficulties, the problems of the past two or three years and the fact that in many respects those problems stem from the Government's economic policies, the industry had never looked for financial assistance from the Government. However, it expects from the Government vigorous action to ensure that EEC obligations are observed equally by ourselves and our partners and are not unequally observed by us and not observed by our partners.
It is against that background that the House must assess the proposed derogation in respect of traditional rum in France. The derogation would legitimise a historic practice which gives a heavy tax advantage to traditional rum over any imported whisky. I think I am right in saying that the duty on the traditional rum which would be consolidated by the derogation in barley half the duty that would be applied to imported whisky.
The Opposition find it difficult to understand why this proposal is made by the Commission in advance of the general talks on harmonisation on excise duty, particularly when those talks have been proceeding for some time, are continuing at present, and are the occasions of regular meetings and of a voluminous production of paper. It is not at all clear why we should grant a specific derogation for one product in one country in advance of that general harmonisation. Indeed, any such deviation is bound to weaken the general drive towards harmonisation on excise


duty, from which the whisky industry stands to benefit. Although the advantage in making that deviation in advance of the general talks on harmonisation is not clear, it is perfectly clear that it would be wrong, as the hon. Lady said, to legitimise a practice, carried out by a Government who have failed to bring themselves within the judgment of the European Court. I hope that the Minister will press that view firmly in the discussions on the derogation.
Before I conclude, I want to say something about another worry which the hon. Lady mentioned, and that is the worry that is felt by the Caribbean countries, particularly the Commonwealth Caribbean countries, about the effect of a particular derogation which would apply to rum produced by only two Caribbean States, the French Overseas Departments. As I understand it, all Caribbean States produce rum of some kind. Almost all of them share the same general social and economic grounds which are put forward to justify derogation in respect of Martinique and Guadeloupe.
It certainly appears wrong that the social objectives of the derogation should be achieved at the expense of any other Caribbean country which shares the same social and economic problems.
We could readily over-state the extent to which the traditional rum from Martinique and Guadeloupe is in competition with the rum from the other Caribbean countries, which does not sell so markedly in the French market. Nevertheless, the principle is important, and it is important to the ACP States and also the Commonwealth secretariat. It would be unfortunate if we were to grant this unique advantage to rum from two countries for sale in a third country within the Common Market. That unique advantage would be particularly strange because, as the hon. Lady said, the need to guarantee access for rum from the ACP countries has been recognised since the start of the Lomé conventions. Indeed, I understand that recently the Common Market itself has set aside 145,000 ecus to study the potential of the rum market in Europe. Having set aside money for that study, it would appear perverse if, in the middle of that study, we jeopardised its outcome by recognising and legitimating a particularly eccentric feature of the rum market in Europe. That is an added reason why the United Kingdom Government should persist in their view that they cannot consent to the derogation until there are specific changes in the French observations of its obligations in respect of excise duty.
The hon. Lady said that she wanted to hear the views of the House. I hope that she will be in no doubt that its views are against consenting to this derogation in the present circumstances. I hope that she will be left in no doubt by those in the House that we see no case for any advantage from giving this derogation in advance of general harmonisation. On the contrary, we see positive objections to granting such a derogation to a country such as France, which not only has not carried out its obligations under the treaty in general in respect of excise duty but has specifically failed to comply with the order of the European Court in respect of the admission of foreign spirits. In those circumstances, I am happy to assent to the motion, and I assure the hon. Lady that she has the Opposition's full support in pressing France to bring its excise duties into line with the court order.

3 am

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I was impressed to receive the information recently that, despite the fact that it is two and a half years since the ruling was made by the European Court in relation to French compliance with its ruling, it was only on 1 June, representations having been made to the Government of the French Republic early in April, that the French replied that they were not quite able to change the duties at that moment.
It is an old French trick to continue to delay; and no doubt others have followed their bad example in the past. I am more than encouraged by what the Minister has said tonight. Unfortunately, it is not reflected in the motion, which is cleverly drawn. I do not say that it is ambiguous, but it does not lay out in emphatic terms what the Minister has said.
Britain is concerned that the Court's ruling should be substantiated by practice in France. The British will not retreat on that. We shall insist on pressure on the French Government by the Commission rapidly to fulfil that obligation. There is no point in discussing derogations of any kind until that stage is reached.
There is no suggestion of a quid pro quo—that we note the matter and that the Council of Ministers assent to the derogation in advance of French compliance with the court's direction on the basis that the French will observe their undertaking, given that they get the derogation from article 95. We should not allow this to pass and then wait to see whether the French Government comply with the court's ruling.
I must declare an interest as adviser to the Scotch Whisky Association. I have been associated with the industry, prior to being an adviser, for many years, and I endorse what the hon. Member for Edinburgh Central (Mr. Cook) said about the present state of the industry.
However, I am somewhat alarmed at some of the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the industry's attitude. I look forward to the day when not only Britain but Europe will have an excise duty which directly relates the alcoholic content to taxation.
Taxation of various alcohols customarily ingested by the British has grown perversely over the years. It is no argument to say that the taxation of beer, as distinct from the taxation of claret, has a class basis. Class barriers in alcohol have been long since broken down. Many wealthy people drink beer and many ordinary folk drink wine. During my time in Parliament—I am sure that this must be true of you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I have witnessed a working-class population moving over to drinking wine, when, 20 years ago, it was almost unheard of. It is a rather old-fashioned argument to identify one's class by the type of alcohol that is drunk.

Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman is attributing an argument to me that I did not use. I said that beer is produced in Britain and that, as we have hitherto been a rather poor manufacturer of claret, there is something to be said for preserving an excise system that does not encourage people to switch from beer to foreign claret.

Dr. Mabon: We have moved from class warfare to xenophobia. It is reasonable to encourage people to make a choice about alcohol, whether it is foreign or British. It is extraordinary to argue that we should consume only our own products and disdain others. I may have


misrepresented the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central earlier, but it is late and perhaps I misheard him. I hope that harmonisation, which is not bad, will include taxation within Britain and the Community on the alcohol content of drinks.
It is important that the Government press hard the need for French Ministers to conform to the Court's judgment. I do not accept that because one of our partners misbehaves—as the French have—that the British should do the same. It is extraordinary to argue that a citizen should misbehave because another citizen is misbehaving. I cannot accept that argument whether it applies to citizens or nations. It is not a question of us misbehaving because the French are, but of persuading the French to accept their obligations under the Treaty of Rome.
I am looking forward to hearing about the discussions in the European Parliament. I hope that our view is expressed there. There is no reason why the proposal should not be accepted.
A sugar refinery in my constituency still flourishes, despite the prognostications of the anti-marketeers. It flourishes, thanks to both Conservative and Labour Governments who established the Lome convention in the early days to allow over 1 million tonnes of cane sugar to be brought into the United Kingdom, the main consumer. That is still happening. The African, Caribbean and Pacific countries supply us with the sugar. The British have fought for, secured and honoured that agreement. We have kept it despite roars from anti-marketeers. Although rum is not as important to the economies of the countries under French possession, it is on the same level.
I am not against finding a way to bring traditional rums from the French possessions into France, or from our former territories into the United Kingdom. That must be understood by our French friends. But we must take account of the overall position of the alcohol regime. Fair's fair, and the French should know that.

Mr. Roger Sims: The French system of excise taxation on spirits is discriminatory. It involves higher rates of duty on Scotch whisky—in which I declare an interest—and on gin and vodka which are imported, than on locally produced products such as cognac, armagnac and brandy. The rates are, in turn, far higher than the rates on rum imported from the French Overseas Departments.
Of course, the wish to offer some protection to products from erstwhile colonial territories is something that we, as an ex-colonial power, can understand. However, these rates are not only protective but discriminatory to the point of causing gross distortion. We are talking of rates of about 4,400 francs per hectolitre of pure alcohol in respect of rum, against just over 7,000 francs for cognac and brandy, and 7,600 francs plus for whisky and gin.
The document before us asks us to perpetuate the situation for at least five years, yet the system of differential taxation was roundly condemned by the European Court of Justice as long ago as 1980, particularly in its effect on imported spirits such as Scotch whisky. France has simply chosen to ignore that ruling, despite the representations made by the Scotch Whisky Association and the British Government and despite the recent efforts made by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North

(Mr. Eggar). Through his European Court of Justice (Compliance with Judgments) Bill, he sought to exert some pressure on France.
However, France maintains this discriminatory structure in defiance both of the spirit—I hope that you will excuse the pun, Mr. Deputy Speaker—of the EEC and the letter of its law to the continued disadvantage of our Scotch whisky. Nevertheless, France wants part of the structure to be given the official blessing of the Community council so that its rum can benefit. To coin a phrase, that is a bit thick. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will find a suitable French colloquialism to convey that view.
After all, one of the criteria for not agreeing to the Commission's proposals is that those proposals are not in the United Kingdom's best interests. I suggest that these proposals fall squarely into that category. My hon. Friend the Minister has invited comments, but I urge her simply to do three things. First, she should resist the perpetuation of an unfair tax system. Secondly, she should use every means open to her to obtain French compliance with the 1980 judgment. Thirdly, she should continue to work towards the harmonisation of duties within the EEC on all alcoholic drinks, which would, of course, eliminate such problems.

Mr. Bowen Wells: At this late hour I rise simply to make two points. It is unacceptable for France to seek a special position for its overseas territories of Martinique and Guadeloupe when Britain is not seeking a similar position for the Commonwealth Caribbean countries at least that are Martinique and Guadeloupe's neighbours.
Through the device of calling Martinique and Guadeloupe overseas territories and departments of France, the French accord them tremendous advantages. The islands of Dominica and St. Lucia are tangential to, and within sight of, those islands, yet there is a marked contrast in the standard of living. If we sincerely want to develop or even maintain the standard of living in the British Commonwealth countries of the Caribbean we should encourage trade with those islands. To continue a preferential position with Guadeloupe and Martinique without seeking the same preferential treatment for the neighbouring islands is quite unacceptable. My hon. Friend the Minister has made it clear that that is firmly in the centre of the argument that she and her right hon. Friend the Minister are advancing to the Commission I hope that she will continue to resist any such blandishments of the French.
On my second point, I declare an interest as a parliamentary consultant to International Distillers & Vintners. It is ironic for us to give a preferential position to an imported spirit, while at the same time we continue domestically to discriminate against Scotch whisky producers in the sense that we have not found it possible to provide a system whereby Scotch whisky distributors have duty deferment. After delivery from bond the taxation—the excise duty—is payable immediately. It is not recovered from the customers until three months later. With interest rates at a high level that is a heavy and continuing burden on the industry. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been unable to relieve that discriminatory position. To find ourselves relieving French overseas territories of such a


problem without making provision for putting the Scotch whisky industry even on the same basis as its competitors is unacceptable.

Mrs. Fenner: I conclude this interesting debate by thanking the House for the contributions that have been made on this most important issue. In the light of the comments that have been made, I reaffirm the Government's commitment to securing the full and effective implementation of article 95 of the Treaty as our primary objective.
I shall try to cover some of the points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) commented on preference for wine. If he had viewed the position over more than four months, he would have seen that there has been no preference for wine. The relativities are now much the same as when we joined the Community.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the question of discussing the derogation for French overseas departments in advance of harmonisation, which is a good point. Talks on harmonisation have been in abeyance for nearly a year and show no sign of resumption. There is no great prospect of harmonisation on a basis that is satisfactory to the United Kingdom, but I agree that, pending that, we must press for the French to comply with the European Court of Justice's judgment.
I assure the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon) that there is not and never has been any question of accepting this proposal in return for a long overdue compliance with the Court's judgment. We do not favour the commission's proposals, for reasons that I have made clear and which have been underlined in the debate. We insist, however, that the Court's judgment be implemented, come what may, and speedily. The hon. Gentleman referred to the concept of a quid pro quo. I reassure him on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells), who referred to duty deferment, will accept that that is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He also mentioned that the French overseas departments are part of France whereas the African, Caribbean and Pacific nations are third countries that enjoy preferential access. My hon. Friend rightly points out that they have similar economic problems. We will try to ensure that they are not discriminated against in any way.
I have noted the arguments that have been urged strongly by hon. Members on both sides of the House on behalf of our Scotch whisky and spirit interests for the need to put an end to the competitive edge that the present arrangements in France provide for the traditional rum from the French overseas departments. I fully concede the principle that all alcoholic spirits are in competition with each other to a greater or lesser extent.
I am pleased to note that, in spite of the highly preferential rates of duty that French overseas department rum enjoys, sales of Scotch whisky in France have risen by some 75 per cent. since 1975 while sales of FOD rum have been falling. I hope that that is reassuring to my hon. Friends. I hope and expect that our exports of Scotch whisky and other spirits will continue to enjoy even greater success. We will oppose in Brussels any measure that threatens that objective.
We also have in mind the traditional suppliers of rum in ACP countries whose competitive position and long-term interests must also be safeguarded. On that basis, I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6168/82 concerning French Overseas Departments' rum and supports the Government's efforts to seek a reduction in the discriminatory taxation of spirit drinks which at present obtains in France.

Mr. Martin foran

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gummer.]

Mr. William Whitlock: While the House has been sitting, Mr. Martin Patrick Foran has entered his forty-seventh day on the roof of Her Majesty's prison, Nottingham. It is a demonstration that is intended to bring to public notice his statement of his innocence of the crimes for which he has been convicted. Many people in the Nottingham area, having learnt some details of his case, have become anxious about him and are convinced of his innocence. That deep anxiety and the fact that the prison is in my constituency has led me to raise the matter.
Foran was convicted on 21 June 1978 on four counts, involving three robberies, and was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment on each, the sentences to run concurrently. Since then, he has consistently asserted his innocence and repeatedly staged various types of demonstration to draw attention to his case. As a result, many people, especially in the East and West Midlands have become worried about him. Many people believe that in his case there has been a miscarriage of justice of which he is the victim.
Foran is a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever), who has played a part in trying to help him. For a while, Foran was an inmate of Gartree prison in Leicestershire where he won the interest of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) who presented a petition to the House on his behalf in 1981.
The Bishop of Leicester has revealed that chaplains at Gartree prison have become deeply concerned about Foran's case and that some of them have become fully convinced that he was wrongly imprisoned. Other hon. Members in both Houses have taken an interest in Foran's case and have made representation to the Home Office. There have been petitions that have been signed by thousands of people. All to no avail—Foran remains in prison.
Martin Foran is no angel. He has "form"—a criminal record—but on 21 June 1978 he was not being tried for his past record. Or was he? Some people fully believe that he was framed. The main witnesses to the robberies—the people who were allegedly his victims—were not called at the trial. For some technical reason, only their statements were read out. The judge at the trial agreed that the descriptions given by the witnesses
did not even remotely resemble Foran".
Since then, those witnesses have said that Martin Foran was not among the persons who robbed them and that they are willing to give evidence to that effect.
No fingerprint evidence was produced at the trial and the chief constable of the West Midlands police force has said that "by genuine mistake" it was not revealed to the defence that Martin Foran's fingerprints were not found at any of the three scenes of the robberies of which he was found guilty, nor were they found on the sword that was used to cut telephone wires in one of the robberies, although other prints were found at each of the scenes.
Dealing with Foran's application for leave to appeal against both his conviction and his sentence, the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) concluded that
there were no grounds upon which Mr. Foran could reasonably expect to argue an appeal with the slightest prospect of success

and his application was refused. The Court of Appeal said that his case was
a confession case, not an identification case".
The evidence by witnesses who were victims of the robberies that Foran was not among the robbers was therefore not thought to matter. The evidence given in court that he was at a house in Ladywood at the time of one of the robberies was thought to be of no consequence. Nor did it matter, apparently, that the absence of Foran's fingerprints at any of the scenes of the crime was not made known to the defence. Everything that would have weighed in his favour was brushed aside. As the Court of Appeal said, it was not an identification case but a confession case. Yet from the very beginning Foran has strenously maintained that any suggestion that he confessed to the crime was a complete fabrication and there is no signed confession by this man.
As I have said, there was a lack of evidence identifying Foran as participating in the robberies, but that lack of evidence was considered to be of no importance. Because that view was taken at the trial, the Court of Appeal in effect stated that identification was unnecessary and waved aside the evidence on. Foran's side that had not been made available at the trial.
I find that absolutely perverse. If that kind of logic is always adopted by our legal luminaries, my previous faith in British justice must disappear. What seems to have weighed heavily with the Court of Appeal was that at the trial Foran was
represented by an extremely experienced team of leading counsel and junior counsel".
It seems, therefore, to have been of paramount importance that a belief in the infallibility of members of the legal profession should be upheld—no matter what the consequences for Foran, and no matter what errors of judgment the learned counsel may have made in conducting the case.
Serious doubts and considerable unease exist in the minds of many people who have taken an interest in Martin Foran's case. We owe it to ourselves as much as to Foran to investigate these doubts and to dispel that unease.
I hope that the Minister of State will be able to tell us that there is an opportunity to have further investigations and that the unease exists in his Department, too. I hope that he will be able to take steps to ensure that all the feelings about Foran are dispelled by a further investigation and by re-opening the case in some way that he has found.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): I have listened with care to what the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock) said about the case of Mr. Foran. I shall study the report of the hon. Gentleman's speech in the Official Report.
Before I deal with some of the points made I shall explain the jurisdiction that the Home Secretary has in individual cases in which it is alleged that there has been a miscarriage of justice. The duty of administering justice in individual criminal cases lies with the courts. While it is true that the Home Secretary has certain powers to intervene following a conviction, either by recommending the exercise of the Royal prerogative of mercy or by referring the case to the Court of Appeal under section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, he must not exercise those powers in any way which tends to usurp the proper


function of the courts. Therefore, in practice he can consider intervention only if significant new evidence or other material factor of substance bearing upon the reliability of the conviction comes to light which has not already been taken into consideration by the courts or which was not previously available to the defendant to be made use of in his defence.
The Home Secretary must not assess the decisions of the courts on the basis only of facts or arguments that they have themselves considered. That would be to act as though he were a further court of appeal himself. In particular, it would be wrong for the Home Secretary to intervene merely because he might have taken a different view of the facts had the original decision rested with him instead of a properly directed jury.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, Mr. Foran was convicted on 21 June 1978 at Birmingham Crown court of three robberies forming the subject of four counts. He was sentenced to four concurrent terms of 10 years' imprisonment. His application for an extension of time in which to appeal and for leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence was refused by a single judge on 21 May 1979 and by the full Court of Appeal on 11 March 1980.
I take the following brief description of the three robberies from the judgment of Lord Justice Donaldson, giving the judgment of the full Court of Appeal. He said:
The first count arises out of an incident which occurred in the early hours of the morning of Monday 26 September 1977. A Mr. Apechis woke up to find three West Indians and a white man in his bedroom. Each was armed with a knife. He described the white man as being 18 years of age and it should be noted that the applicant was then aged 33. All four wore masks which they later pulled up. Mr. Apechis was told that he had better produce his money or it would be the worse for him, and the men departed taking £2,800 from beneath the mattress and some sovereigns, having first tied up Mr. Apechis.
I now turn to the second robbery. There were three robberies in all, although they formed four counts. The second robbery occurred at half past midnight on 8 October 1977 at the home of a Mr. and Mrs. Trikain.
Lord Justice Donaldson said that Mr. Trikain woke up to find a white man standing beside the bed with a bar in his hand. The intruder said that they, meaning he and others, wanted money and as long as they got it Mr. Trikain would not be hurt. Mr. Trikain then noticed that there was a coloured man on the other side of the bed. He had a bar in one hand and a torch in the other. That man ok some money from Mrs. Trikain's handbag and told the white man to keep an eye on the Trikains while he left the bedroom.
Mr. Trikain then went for the white man who departed speedily. Mr. Trikain's evidence was that both the men were young, the white man aged about 25—the accused was 33 at the relevant time—and the coloured man 18 to 20. Mrs. Trikain also agreed that the white man was about 25. The Trikains were faced with the difficulty that they could not see the white man's face and hair because he had taken the precaution of using a pullover belonging to the Trikain's daughter to put over his head.
That brings me"—
said Lord Justice Donaldson—
to the last robbery which is the subject matter of two counts. Mr. Rice had a jeweller's shop in Sparkbrook. On 13 October 1977 a Mr. Holmes called to see him. Some time between 5.30 and 6 in the evening these two men were in the back part of the shop when two coloured men entered, followed a few seconds

later by a white man who was brandishing some form of sword or cutlass which he used to cut the telephone lines. Immediately thereafter two more coloured men appeared. Mr. Rice and Mr. Holmes were ordered into the kitchen. The sword was handed over to one of the coloured men whilst the white man opened up one of the two safes. There were also two watches which Mr. Rice was repairing and they were taken and the till was emptied. While these operations were going on, Mrs. Rice arrived with her daughter, Karen. the door had been locked. Mrs. Rice knocked on it. The white man, telling Mr. Rice to keep out of sight, invited Mrs. Rice to come in. Apparently at that stage the white man decided that it would be better that all should depart. They did so in some hurry, dropping all the proceeds of the robbery other than about £30, and the sword or cutlass. Mr. Rice said that that white man was Irish, by which I take it he meant that he spoke with an Irish accent; that he had marks like moles on the sides of his face; that he was in his late twenties or early thirties; and wore a hat. Mr. Holmes who had his wrist watch and wallet taken, put the white man as being about 40 years of age and again said he had moles, specifying that they were on the right cheek.
That was the summary of the facts given in the Court of Appeal. In May 1977, Mr. Foran had been arrested in connection with other matters and bailed. He jumped his bail, and a warrant was issued and he was rearrested on 24 October 1977.
Mr. Foran was then interviewed by three police officers, to one of whom, when he was alone, he is said to have admitted his part in the robbery at the jeweller's shop, which occasion he described in great detail and with considerable accuracy.
Evidence was given at the trial that Mr. Foran had confirmed this confession to two other police officers, one of whom was a detective chief inspector. On 9 November, an identification parade was held. As Mr. Foran had moles on his face, all those taking part had sticking plaster in the relevant places. Mr. Holmes positively identified Mr. Foran. Mr. Rice, however, picked out another man, as did his wife and daughter. The latter had picked out Mr. Foran from some photographs but neither the trial court nor the Appeal Court regarded that as satisfactory.
On 13 March 1978, one Errol Campbell, a West Indian, was arrested and made a statement in which he admitted to all three robberies and said that Mr. Foran was involved in each. On 3 April 1978, two police officers interviewed Mr. Foran at Leicester prison, when they read Campbell's statement to him. Their evidence was that he thereupon admitted that he had taken part in the Apechis and Trikain robberies as well as that at the jeweller's shop.
At the trial, however, Mr. Foran denied entirely that he had confessed to any of the offences at any time, said that the police had fabricated all the evidence and, indeed, said that they had beaten him up for refusing to confess.
A prison officer who had escorted Mr. Foran when he was interviewed by the police at Leicester prison, and who had seen but not heard the interview, gave evidence for the defence. His evidence was in conflict with that of the police officers on certain matters, including the attitude of Mr. Foran during that interview, and in his summing-up the trial judge was at pains to draw the attention of the jury to all the descrepancies. It was for the jury to decide which evidence it preferred.
I now return briefly to the robberies at the houses of Mr. Apechis and Mr. Trikain. Mr. Apechis described the man as being about 18 years of age, as I have mentioned. Mr. Foran was 33. Mr. and Mrs. Trikain said that the white man concerned in their robbery was about 25. That evidence was read at Mr. Foran's trial by agreement—it was not a matter of technicality, as the hon. Gentleman said, but by agreement—and the judge was again at pains


in his summing-up to point out to the jury that certainly Mr. Apechis's description of the white man did not even remotely resemble Mr. Foran.
When Mr. Foran sought leave to appeal against his conviction and his sentence, he sought leave to call Mr. Apechis and Mr. Trikain to give evidence. Mr. Apechis had said in a letter before the Court of Appeal that he was sure that Mr. Foran was not present. However, the full court refused the application, principally because the case against Mr. Foran had rested not on identification, for there was none in the case of the Apechis and Trikain robberies, but upon his confession to the offences. The court commented that Mr. Apechis's description had been before the jury, which had had its attention drawn by the judge to the fact that it did not in the least resemble Mr. Foran. Similarly, the court had been reminded that Mr. Trikain had not seen the face of the white intruder. The jury was entitled, nevertheless, to accept the police evidence as to the oral confessions.
Since the trial, said Lord Justice Donaldson, it had emerged that Mr. Trikain could say that he knew Mr. Foran and that it was not he who had robbed him. The court dealt with those applications to call further evidence in the following passage. Lord Justice Donaldson said:
We have given serious consideration as to whether there should be leave to appeal to enable these applications to call further evidence to be considered. We do not think there are any grounds for granting leave to call that further evidence, bearing in mind our analysis that this was a confession case and that identification or non-identification, or positive evidence that it was not the man, in the circumstances of this case would not take the matter sufficiently far beyond the state which was reached at the trial when evidence from these two men was read, to justify us giving leave for them to give evidence and reconsidering the matter.
It will be clear that in the case of the two robberies to which I have just referred—the Apechis and the Trikain robberies—the case against Mr. Foran rested exclusively on the reliance to be placed on his alleged admissions at Leicester prison on 3 April. In the light of the conflict between the evidence of the police officers taking the confession and the prison officer to whom I have already referred, I have had further investigations made. These have, however, failed to reveal any further grounds for umpugning the police officers' account. It is to be remembered that the prison officer observed the interview from the adjoining room, and except for one occasion when he joined the interview at Mr. Foran's request, he did not hear the conversation between him and the police officers.
The case in respect of the offences against Mr. Rice and Mr. Holmes at the jeweller's shop is also based on Mr. Foran's alleged confessions, although in that case there is the additional factor that Mr. Holmes did positively identify him at the identification parade.

Mr. Whitlock: The hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that, while one of the four people who witnessed the third robbery identified Foran, the other three identified others in the identification parade.

Mr. Mayhew: That is perfectly true, but the hon. Gentleman cannot just pick on a factor and say that that is decisive to the exclusion of others.
I hope that I have dealt with the matter fairly, but a fair account of the matter has to take note of the fact that in

the case of the jeweller's shop robbery there was an additional element of a positive identification on the part of Mr. Holmes.
At his trial, Mr. Foran adduced an alibi for this period—that is to say, the period relating to the jeweller's shop robbery—but, although the trial judge carefully explained to the jury that it was not for Mr. Foran to prove that alibi, the jury was evidently not led by it to doubt the prosecution's evidence as to his confession.
I have also investigated the fact that partial fingerprint impressions found on the sword used during the robbery were not those of Mr. Foran. However, that does not take us any further. It was unchallenged at the trial that the sword was, for instance, handed by the white man engaged in the robbery to one of the West Indians, three of whom have not yet been traced. It would have been possible for Mr. Foran to have handled the sword without leaving any fingerprints upon it.
The hon. Gentleman rightly said that the chief constable has said that it was by a genuine mistake that the fact that partial fingerprints had been found which were not those of Mr. Foran was not communicated to the defence. I think that I have dealt with that. It is a factor that does not take the matter further in any significant respect.
The hon. Gentleman has devoted great care to this issue. If he cares to examine in the Official Report what I have said, he will find that it is not an accurate or fair description of what took place to say that everything that would have weighed in Mr. Foran's favour was brushed aside. The judge was at pains at the trial to point out the discrepancies, for example, between the evidence of appearance given by Mr. Apechis and Mr. Trikain and the prosecution case. He was at pains to point out the discrepancies that arose between the evidence of the prison officer and the evidence of the police officers at the time that the confession was said to have been made. The hon. Gentleman cannot say that matters that were favourable were brushed on one side.
The Court of Appeal had to ascertain whether there was anything that prevented a properly directed jury—it held that the jury was properly directed—from preferring the evidence of the police officers to the oral confessions that were made. It is for the jury, which has the advantage of seeing witnesses, hearing witnesses and making its own judgment of the reliability of witnesses, to come to a conclusion on the facts in a criminal trial.
It must always be borne in mind that the Home Secretary must not usurp the function of the jury or that of the Court of Appeal. Against that background I have carefully considered the case, including the fingerprint argument. I have been unable to find any new evidence or other material factor not already considered by the courts or previously available to the defence that would justify the Home Secretary seeking to intervene. That decision cannot and will not be affected by any extraneous consideration such as the demonstration upon which Mr. Foran is currently engaged.

Question put and agreed to

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Four o'clock am.